Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of bivariate logistic regression models showing relationships between each parent and child characteristics, and each parent feeding practice (n = 402)

From: Relationships between parent feeding behaviors and parent and child characteristics in Brazilian preschoolers: a cross-sectional study

Variables Risk Category Negative/ Non-nutritive feeding practices Positive feeding practices
   Restriction for Weight Control (RWC) Restriction for Health (RH) Pressure (P) Emotion Regulation/Food as Reward (ER/FR) Healthy Eating Guidance (HEG) Monitoring (M)
OR (CI 95%)
Parent characteristics
 Parent agea 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 1.03 (0.99–1.07) 1.02 (0.98–1.07) 0.97 (0.93–1.01) 1.00 (0.96–1.04) 0.98 (0.95–1.03)
 Mother education <college complete 2.68 (1.22–5.87) 2.83 (1.29–6.19) 0.98 (0.47–2.04) 2.21 (1.05–4.61) 0.70 (0.34–1.44) 2.13 (0.98–4.65)
 Mother BMIb 0.98 (0.92–1.03) 1.02 (0.96–1.08) 0.94 (0.88–0.96) 0.99 (0.94–1.05) 1.10 (1.03–1.17) 1.04 (0.98–1.10)
 Mother weight status Overweight/obese 0.96 (0.60–1.52) 1.58 (0.99–2.51) 0.65 (0.41–1.05) 0.84 (0.53–1.34) 1.61 (1.00–2.57) 1.22 (0.77–1.93)
 Perceived responsibility for child feeding Never/seldom/half of the time/most of the time 1.31 (0.88–1.94) 0.66 (0.45–0.99) 0.95 (0.64–1.41) 1.17 (0.79–1.74) 1.25 (0.84–1.86) 1.77 (1.19–2.63)
 Concern about child overweight Concerned/
fairly concerned/
very concerned
2.54 (1.70–3.80) 1.52 (1.02–2.25) 1.12 (0.75–1.66) 1.18 (0.80–1.76) 1.06 (0.72–1.58) 1.00 (0.68–1.49)
 Concern about child underweight Fairly concerned/
very concerned
1.14 (0.77–1.68) 1.37 (0.92–2.03) 2.30 (1.54–3.46) 1.11 (0.75–1.65) 0.98 (0.67–1.46) 0.79 (0.54–1.17)
Child characteristics
 Sex Male 0.87 (0.59–1.28) 1.37 (0.93–2.03) 1.15 (0.78–1.72) 0.94 (0.64–1.40) 1.26 (0.85–1.86) 1.25 (0.84–1.85)
 Weight status Overweight/obese/extremely obese 1.71 (1.09–2.67) 1.43 (0.92–2.24) 1.63 (1.03–2.59) c 1.07 (0.68–1.67) 1.28 (0.82–2.01) 1.28 (0.82–2.00)
 Ultra-processed food intake Frequent consumption 0.95 (0.63–1.42) 1.36 (0.90–2.04) 1.02 (0.68–1.54) 1.36 (0.90–2.06) 1.39 (0.92–2.09) 2.10 (1.39–3.19)
 Traditional food intake Infrequent consumption 1.24 (0.83–1.86) 1.47 (0.99–2.20) 0.99 (0.66–1.49) 1.50 (0.99–2.25) 1.69 (1.13–2.53) 1.37 (0.92–2.05)
 Screen time (per day) > 2 h 1.17 (0.78–1.75) 1.33 (0.86–1.98) 1.03 (0.69–1.55) 1.42 (0.95–2.13) 1.81 (1.20–2.72) 1.70 (1.13–2.56)
  1. OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, p p-value. Results in bold are significant at p ≤ 0.05. For this analysis, we defined risk categories as follows. HEG: < 87.50 (possible range 46.87–100); M: < 98.75 (possible range 0–100); RWC: > 25.00 (possible range 0–96.43); RH: > 70.00 (possible range 0–100); P: > 62.50 (possible range 0–100); ER/FR: > 12.50 (possible range 0–75).
  2. a Age of respondent parent as continuous variable
  3. b Mother BMI as continuous variable
  4. c Risk category in BMI z-score: “normal weight”