Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Relationship between family functioning, family communication, family type & parenting style and adolescent/parental BMI

From: Relationship between body mass index and family functioning, family communication, family type and parenting style among African migrant parents and children in Victoria, Australia: a parent-child dyad study

  Children Parents
95 % CI: 95 % CI 95 % CI 95 % CI
Poorly functioning family 1.28* 0.14 2.41 1.73*** 0.53 2.94 0.43 −0.81 1.67 0.47 −0.89 1.84
Family communication: Conformity orientation −0.11* −0.22 0.00 −0.11 −0.24 0.01 −0.03 −0.14 0.08 0.02 −0.10 0.14
Family communication: Conversation orientation −0.04 −0.12 0.03 −0.08* −0.15 0.00 −0.03 −0.12 0.06 −0.02 −0.12 0.08
Family type: Pluralist −1.26 −2.92 0.40 −1.10 −2.86 0.66 −0.44 −2.21 1.32 −0.28 −2.18 1.62
Family type: Consensual −1.47 −3.00 0.06 −1.92* −3.59 −0.24 −0.83 −2.49 0.83 0.01 −1.82 1.83
Family type: Protective −1.38 −2.91 0.15 −0.66 −2.33 1.01 −0.46 −2.58 1.67 0.26 −2.08 2.59
Parenting style: Authoritative 0.05 −1.23 1.32 0.21 −1.16 1.58 −0.21 −1.61 1.19 0.21 −1.36 1.79
Parenting style: Permissive 0.47 −1.32 2.25 0.23 −1.75 2.21 0.46 −1.97 2.89 2.34 −0.32 5.01
Parenting style: Unengaged 1.38 −2.02 4.77 1.35 −2.48 5.17 −2.06 −6.67 2.56 0.72 −9.24 10.68
  1. Variables in the adjusted model include age, gender, length of stay in Australia, religion, parental education, and household income. Uβ Unadjusted β coefficient, Aβ Adjusted β coefficient. p values * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; *** < 0.001