Next Article in Journal
Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria in Human Milk and Maternal Adiposity
Next Article in Special Issue
Mapping of Outdoor Food and Beverage Advertising around Spanish Schools
Previous Article in Journal
Secondary Metabolites in the Dendrobium heterocarpum Methanolic Extract and Their Impacts on Viability and Lipid Storage of 3T3-L1 Pre-Adipocytes
Previous Article in Special Issue
De-Implementation of Detrimental Feeding Practices in Childcare: Mixed Methods Evaluation of Community Partner Selected Strategies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/nu14142885
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

The Relationships between Caregivers’ Concern about Child Weight and Their Non-Responsive Feeding Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Jian Wang
1,*,
Xiaoxue Wei
2,
Yan-Shing Chang
1,
Ayako Hiyoshi
3,
Kirsty Winkley
1 and
Yang Cao
3,4,*
1
Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, London SE1 8WA, UK
2
School of Nursing, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200025, China
3
Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, 70182 Örebro, Sweden
4
Unit of Integrative Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2022, 14(14), 2885; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142885
Submission received: 21 June 2022 / Revised: 8 July 2022 / Accepted: 11 July 2022 / Published: 14 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nutrition Environment and Children’s Eating Behavior and Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: It is unclear whether caregivers’ concern about child weight impacts their non-responsive feeding practices. This systematic review aimed to examine their relationships. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science core collection, CINAHL and grey literature was conducted from inception to March 2022, following PRISMA guidelines. Data synthesis was performed using a semi-quantitative approach and a meta-analysis. Results: A total of 35 studies with 22,933 respondents were included in the review for semi-quantitative analyses. Thirty-four studies examined 52 associations between concern about child weight and restriction with 40 statistically significant associations being observed. A total of 34 relationships between concern about child weight and pressure to eat were investigated, with 12 being statistically significant. The pooled regression coefficients (β) demonstrated that caregivers’ concern about child overweight was positively associated with restriction (β = 0.22; 95%CI: 0.12, 0.31), negatively associated with use of food as a reward (β = −0.06; 95%CI: −0.11, −0.01), and not statistically associated with pressure to eat (β = −0.05; 95%CI: −0.13, 0.04). The pooled odds ratios (ORs) indicated that caregivers who were concerned about child overweight were found to use restrictive feeding more often (OR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.69, 3.23), while less frequently adopting pressure to eat (OR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.59, 0.98) compared with those without concerns. The results also showed that caregivers who were concerned about child underweight were more likely to force their children to eat (OR = 1.83; 95%CI: 1.44, 2.33) than those without concerns. Conclusion: Caregivers’ concern about child weight may be an important risk factor for non-responsive feeding practices. Thus, interventions are needed to focus on managing and relieving caregivers’ excessive concern about child weight, especially overweight, which may optimize feeding practices and subsequently contribute to child health.

1. Introduction

The rise of overweight and obesity in children has become a significant public health issue, which affected 39 million children under the age of 5 and over 340 million children and adolescents aged 5–19 in 2020 worldwide [1]. Childhood overweight and obesity commonly lead to adulthood obesity and increase the risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes [2,3,4].
Previous evidence has conceptualized contributors to childhood overweight and obesity through multiple levels (e.g., genetic, and environmental factors) [5,6,7]. Among these risk factors, caregivers’ feeding practices have been shown to play an important role [8,9,10,11]. There are two types of feeding practices: non-responsive and responsive feeding [12,13,14]. Non-responsive feeding practices (also known as coercive control), such as forcing to eat, restricting food, and using food as a reward [15], have been widely studied and raised crucial concerns owing to their close links with childhood obesity [8,9,10,11,16]. Positive relationships between non-responsive feeding practices and child weight status have been consistently reported [8,16]. A recent meta-analysis from 51 studies, with 17,431 parent-child dyads, reported that the use of controlling feeding practices by caregivers was associated with a greater risk of childhood obesity [8]. Caregivers’ feeding practices are therefore critical in addressing childhood overweight and obesity [17,18].
Costanzo and Woody (1985) proposed that parents were more likely to exert a higher level of external control over children’s eating (e.g., pressure to eat, food restriction) when they were concerned about their child’s weight [19,20]. Empirical evidence has also confirmed that caregivers’ concern about child weight plays a key role in whether a caregiver may use non-responsive feeding practices (i.e., coercive control). For instance, a cross-sectional study (n = 273) in the United States (US) indicated that parental higher restrictive feeding was associated with more concern about their preschool children’s weight [21]. Similarly, a population-based study (n = 1284) reported that maternal concern about their four- to seven-year-old children’s weight was positively associated with restrictive feeding and negatively associated with pressure to eat [22]. On the other hand, Costa et al. [23] found that mothers who were concerned about child weight reported higher food restrictions, while there was no statistically significant association between concern about child weight and pressure to eat. However, some studies did not demonstrate such associations [24,25,26]. For example, a study in the US (n = 196) reported no statistically significant association between concern about child weight and feeding practices involving restriction of food and pressure to eat [24]. Overall, despite the progressive evidence linking caregivers’ concern about child weight to their non-responsive feeding practices, current findings of the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices have been inconsistent.
In addition to the evidence above, some studies have suggested that caregivers’ concern about child underweight and overweight may have different effects on their non-responsive feeding practices [27,28,29]. For example, a cross-sectional study in Brazil (n = 659) reported that parental concern about child overweight was associated with more food restriction for children’s weight control and health, while concern about child underweight was associated with more pressure to eat [28]. Similarly, Gebru et.al [29] used a multi-stage random sampling method and found that caregivers who were concerned about child underweight were more likely to pressure their children to eat and might not restrict their children’s food, whereas caregivers who were concerned about child overweight were more likely to restrict their children’s food intake and less likely to force children to eat. Warkentin et.al [30] also found that parental higher concern about child overweight was associated with restrictive feeding, but not associated with practices such as forcing children to eat or using food as a reward after controlling for the confounders. Although the above findings supported that concern about child overweight and underweight had varied influences on different types of caregivers’ non-responsive feeding practices, no previous systematic reviews have pooled the results of various studies to verify their relationship. Thus, there is a need to synthesize the current evidence to identify the influence of caregivers’ concern about child underweight and overweight on their non-responsive feeding practices.
To sum up, current findings about the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices were equivocal. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the existing evidence on their associations. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review and meta-analysis has been conducted to summarize the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight (including underweight and overweight) and their non-responsive feeding practices. Findings from this review will enhance our understanding of their relationships and inform the development of future interventions to optimize caregivers’ feeding practices. Furthermore, our review aimed to clarify the impacts of caregivers’ concern about child underweight and overweight on their non-responsive feeding practices. The findings will help to identify their impacts on caregivers’ non-responsive feeding practices, which may provide guidance on developing personalized interventions to improve caregivers’ feeding practices and eventually manage childhood obesity.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Search Strategy

The systematic review and meta-analysis complied with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [31] and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) [32], and was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022304697). The PECO framework was used to formulate the question to explore the associations between the exposures and outcomes of interest [33].
A systematic literature search was carried out on PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science core collection, and CINAHL, from their inception to March 2022. To minimize publication bias, we also searched for studies in grey literature sources including the Grey literature report (http://greylit.org/, accessed on 10 March 2022), and Open grey EU (http://opengrey.eu/, accessed on 10 March 2022). The search was limited to publications published in English. The free text and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used for the search included: child, preschool, school child, paediatric, pre-teen, caregiver, parent, grandparent, mother, father, guardian, perception, concern, recognition, weight, body size, body mass index, feeding practice, food parenting, and food control. A manual search of the bibliography of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:
(1)
Study design was cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional study.
(2)
Studies that examined the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices.
(3)
The exposure was caregivers’ concern about child weight, including underweight and overweight.
(4)
The outcomes were caregivers’ non-responsive feeding practices.
(5)
Included caregivers (e.g., parents and grandparents) who were responsible for the food environment and their children’s eating.
(6)
Children aged 1 to 11 years at baseline (from toddler to middle childhood) [34]. Evidence showed that it is a critical period for the development of children’s self-regulation [35,36] and is characterised by growing independence from eating [37].
Studies were excluded if they:
(1)
Were reviews, editorials, commentaries, letters, or methodological papers.
(2)
Were non-English papers.
(3)
Did not report the statistics for the relationships between caregivers’ concern about their children’s weight and their non-responsive feeding practices.
(4)
Focused on children with diseases that might influence their eating.

2.3. Study Screening and Data Extraction

The PRISMA flow diagram was followed during the study screening stage [31]. One investigator (JW) screened the title and abstract for initial inclusion. Full texts were reviewed independently by two investigators (JW and XW) for further screening. Extracted data were compared and summarized to have one final document with which analysis was conducted. The information extracted included: the name of the first author, year of publication, the country that the study was conducted in, study design, sample size, response rate, variables of interest and their measures, and main findings. Data on the associations between caregiver’s concern about child weight and non-responsive feeding practices, including regression coefficients (β) or risk ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) or standard errors were extracted. We contacted the corresponding authors if a study did not provide necessary numerical results. For any disagreements that occurred during the study screening and data extraction stages between the two investigators, a third reviewer (YC) was consulted.

2.4. Outcomes

Based on the conceptual analyses of food parenting practices [38,39,40], the non-responsive feeding practices were classified into four categories including restriction, pressure to eat, emotional feeding, and use of food as a reward.
(1)
Restriction means that the caregivers enforce strict limitations on children’s access to food or opportunities to consume a specific food [15]. Typically, restrictive feeding is used to control the children’s intake of unhealthy food [19,41,42,43] and children’s weight [42].
(2)
Pressure to eat means that caregivers insist, demand, or physically struggle with the child to have the child eat enough or enough of a specific food [15,19,42,43].
(3)
Using food as a reward is also called instrumental feeding, which bribes and threatens children to eat food [15,44].
(4)
Emotional feeding means that caregivers use food to manage or calm children when they are upset, fussy, angry, hurt, or bored [15,45], such as by using food to soothe, intrigue, and/or relieve.

2.5. Study Quality Assessment

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies were used for quality appraisal [46]. The tools assess the methodological quality of a study and determine the extent to which a study has addressed the possibility of bias in its design, conduct, and analysis. Two reviewers (JW and XW) independently performed the assessment, checking for possible sources of bias, attrition, and the validity of survey instruments. The final assessment was achieved upon discussion, and no studies were identified for exclusion by reviewers (see Supplementary Tables S1 and S2).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The studies eventually without necessary numerical results were excluded from the meta-analysis. We thus used a semi-quantitative approach to summarize the findings of all the included articles as adopted by recent reviews [47,48,49].
The studies that provided the necessary numerical results were included in the meta-analysis. If an association between the same category of exposure and outcome was multiply evaluated in one study, the results were first synthesized within the study, and the summarized data were then used for the meta-analysis. The subscale of concern about child weight in the Child Feeding Questionnaire (CFQ) was used to assess caregivers’ concern about the child’s risk of being overweight [19], which was recategorized as concern about child overweight in the meta-analysis. All extracted effect sizes (β or OR) were adjusted values from multivariable models in each article that examined caregivers’ concern about child overweight and their non-responsive feeding practices and were pooled in the meta-analysis. Due to the limited number of articles that assessed the associations between caregivers’ concern about child underweight and their pressure to make children eat, we decided to include a study [50] that did not control for the confounders in the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the included studies was investigated using the I2 statistics [51]. The random-effects model was used in case of high heterogeneity indicated by an I2 > 50%; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used [52,53]. The potential publication bias was assessed by the combination of Egger’s test and visual inspection of the funnel plot [54]. The leave-one-out (LOO) analysis was also performed as the sensitivity analysis to investigate the influence of a single study on the pooled effect [55]. Additionally, differences caused by child age [56,57], child weight status [58], caregivers’ education [30,56], caregivers’ role [59], family income [60,61], country’s level of development [62,63], and the measurements of exposure and outcome [19,64] were evaluated using subgroup analysis and meta-regression. All analyses were performed in Stata 17.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). All tests were two-sided, and the statistical significance was set as a p-value < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

A total of 35,780 articles were identified. After removing duplicates, 23,194 articles remained for the initial screening, from which 239 articles were retrieved. After full text screenings, 35 studies were retained for analyses. The PRISMA flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Characteristics of the Studies

Characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. The studies were published between 2001 and 2022, conducted in the US (n = 12) [21,24,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74], Australia (n = 6) [26,27,75,76,77,78], Brazil (n = 4) [28,30,50,79], Sweden (n = 4) [22,80,81,82], China (n = 2) [83,84], the Netherlands (n = 1) [85], Ethiopia (n = 1) [29], the UK (n = 1) [86], Mexico (n = 1) [87], South Korea (n = 1) [88], Portugal (n = 1) [23], India (n = 1) [25], and France (n = 1) [74]. The study designs were a cross-sectional study (n = 32) and a cohort study (n = 3) [23,26,85]. The total sample size was 22,933, with the individual study sample size ranging from 48 [26] to 4689 [85]. The caregivers were typically mothers (n = 19). Only four studies used a random sampling method [27,29,67,83].

3.3. Measurements for Caregivers’ Concern about Child Weight and Their Non-Responsive Feeding Practices

The measurements used for assessing caregivers’ concerns about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices are shown in Supplementary Table S3. The most common measurement was CFQ [19], which was intended for parents of children aged 2–11 years. Thirty studies used the subscale of concern about child weight in CFQ to assess caregivers’ concern about children at risk of being overweight [19], and two studies [29,77] used the Preschooler Feeding Questionnaire (PFQ) [89] to assess caregivers’ concern about child underweight. CFQ (n = 21) and the Chinese Child Feeding Questionnaire (C-CFQ) [90] (n = 2) [83,84] was used to assess the domains of non-responsive feeding practices, including restriction, pressure to eat, and use of food as a reward. The Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ) [64] was also adopted in ten studies to assess caregivers’ restrictions for weight and health, pressure to eat, use of food as a reward, and emotional feeding.

3.4. Semi-Quantitative Results

Table 2 summarizes the associations between caregivers’ concerns about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices. The included studies focused on examining the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their restrictive feeding and pressure to eat. Specifically, thirty-four studies examined the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and restrictive feeding practice, and 40 statistically significant associations were observed. A total of 34 statistical estimates of the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and pressure to eat were investigated in 24 studies, with over one-third of the associations being statistically significant. A detailed summary of the associations is reported in Supplementary Table S3.

3.5. Results of Meta-Analysis

3.5.1. Concern about Child Overweight and Restrictive Feeding

Figure 2 shows that caregivers’ excessive concern about child overweight was associated with more use of restrictive feeding, with a pooled β = 0.22 (95%CI: 0.12, 0.31) based on the random-effects model (I2 = 95%, p < 0.001). The funnel plot of β for these studies appears symmetric (Figure 3). No statistically significant publication bias was detected (Egger’s test p = 0.106). The LOO sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust, and all the estimates were statistically significant (Figure 4).
Compared with the caregivers who were not concerned about child overweight, the caregivers who were concerned were found to use restrictive feeding more frequently (pooled OR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.69, 3.23; Figure 5) by using the random-effects model. The funnel plot of ORs appears symmetric (Figure 6). No statistically significant publication bias was found (Egger’s test p = 0.473). The LOO analysis indicated that the results were robust, and all the estimates were statistically significant (Figure 7).

3.5.2. Concern about Child Weight and Pressure to Eat

As shown in Figure 8, caregivers’ concern about child overweight was not statistically significantly associated with pressure to eat (pooled β = −0.05; 95%CI: −0.13, 0.04), using the random-effects model (I2 = 79.1%, p < 0.001). The funnel plot of βs for these studies appears symmetric (Figure 9). No statistically significant publication bias was found (Egger’s test p = 0.670). The LOO analysis indicated that the results were robust, and only one estimate was statistically significant (Figure 10).
Figure 11 presents the pooled ORs for the effects of concern about child underweight and overweight on pressure to eat. Caregivers’ concern about child underweight was associated with increased risk of pressure to eat (OR = 1.83; 95%CI:1.44, 2.33) compared with those who were not concerned about underweight. In contrast, the result showed that the caregivers who were concerned about child overweight were less likely to force their children to eat (OR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.59, 0.98) compared with those who were not concerned. As there were no more than three studies exploring their associations, funnel plots were not provided.

3.5.3. Concern about Child Overweight and Use of Food as a Reward

Figure 12 shows that more caregivers’ concern about child overweight was associated with less use of food as a reward (β = −0.06; 95%CI: −0.11, −0.01) with the fixed-effects model (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.852). The funnel plot of βs for these studies appears symmetric (Figure 13). No statistically significant publication bias was found (Egger’s test p = 0.943). The LOO analysis indicated that the results were robust, and only one estimate was not statistically significant (Figure 14).

3.5.4. Subgroup Analysis

The subgroup analysis aimed to identify the potential sources of heterogeneity and examine the stability of the relationship between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices across different categories. The results indicated that the associations were similar in most subgroups (Table 3). However, moderate to high heterogeneities were observed in most subgroups. The increased likelihood of restrictive feeding was found in the subgroup with less high-income families (β = 0.320; 95% CI: 0.233, 0.408; n = 3). No statistically significant between-group differences were found for other subgroup comparisons (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence examining the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices. The results suggested that caregivers’ concern about child weight may play a significant role in the use of non-responsive feeding practices, especially restrictive feeding.
Thirty-four studies examined 52 relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their restrictive feeding with 40 statistically significant associations being observed in the semi-quantitative analyses. This finding suggested the important role of concern about child weight in restrictive feeding, which was in accordance with Costanzo and Woody’s suggestion [20] that caregivers may use controlled feeding practices when they are concerned about their children’s weight. Consistently, the results of this meta-analysis indicated that caregivers’ concern about child overweight was associated with more restriction of food. When caregivers are concerned about child overweight, they may realize the consequences of child overweight or obesity [2,3,4], such as adulthood obesity and chronic disease, which may make them adopt controlled feeding practices (e.g., the restriction of unhealthy food) [83]. Furthermore, society places great importance on weight and body shape [91]; thus, caregivers may be more likely to restrict their children’s eating if they were concerned about their child becoming overweight. However, restrictive feeding practices have been linked with increased disinhibited eating and weight gain among children [71,72,86], hence current obesity prevention and treatment guidelines recommend that caregivers avoid excessive restriction of children’s eating [92].
Of twenty-four studies examining the associations between caregivers’ concern about child weight and the use of pressure to eat, over one third of the associations were statistically significant in the semi-quantitative results. This finding suggested that caregivers’ concern about child weight may be a potential risk factor of pressure to eat. However, the results of our meta-analysis were mixed. Specifically, the pooled βs showed that caregivers’ concern about child overweight was not associated with pressure to eat, but the pooled ORs presented that caregivers’ concern about both child underweight and overweight were statistically significantly associated with pressure to eat. That is, caregivers who were concerned about child underweight may be more likely to apply pressure to eat compared to those who were not concerned. In contrast, caregivers who were concerned about child overweight were less likely to force their children to eat compared with those who were not concerned. Caregivers might consider that a lower weight, which may be a biological (heritable) characteristic of the child, could compromise their healthy development and growth [93]. Thus, they may directly force children to eat more in response to their concern about their child being underweight. Nevertheless, caregivers’ pressure to eat has been associated with negative affective reactions to food and a close relationship with low weight in children [94]. Additionally, we found the pooled βs and ORs that synthesized associations between caregivers’ concern about child overweight and their pressure to eat were inconsistent. It suggests that concern about child overweight may not be the main reason for the low frequency of caregivers’ pressure to eat. Children may have some difficulties in developing optimal eating habits due to their physical and psychological characteristics (e.g., limited autonomy) [69,95,96]. In this case, caregivers may assume that children are incapable of detecting their own cues to hunger and satiety, and consequently, they may prefer to manage their eating through pressure [97]. Furthermore, other potential risk factors (e.g., perception of child weight, child fussy eating) may be more directly associated with caregivers’ pressure to eat [98,99]. Due to the limited number of included studies, the relationships between concern about child overweight and pressure to eat need to be investigated further.
Six studies reported the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child overweight and their use of food as a reward. These studies examined a total of 11 associations and only two showed statistical significance in the semi-quantitative analyses, suggesting their weak significance. The result of the meta-analysis showed that caregivers’ excessive concern about child overweight was negatively associated with use of food as a reward. Caregivers’ feeding practices may carry cultural and ethnic variations. In developing countries (e.g., China) or in low socioeconomic settings, caregivers tend to use food as a symbol of their love for their children, or as an educational and emotional tool for shaping their children’s eating and behaviors [62], because they may believe that higher weight indicates better health and nutrition status [100,101]. However, if they expressed concern about their child being overweight, they may not use food as a reward to encourage their children to eat more [84].
In addition, the heterogeneities were high in the meta-analysis that synthesized the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child overweight and restrictive feeding and pressure to eat with pooled βs. First, our subgroup analysis showed that caregivers who were concerned about child overweight may be more likely to restrict their children’s food in the group with less high-income families. Caregivers in low-income families may experience unique barriers to provide health-promoting feeding practices [100,102]. When they are concerned about child overweight, they may not consider applying responsive feeding practices (e.g., rules and limits, modeling, and the encouragement of healthy eating). Instead, they may prefer to use restrictive feeding as a straightforward method [83]. Second, although the subscale of concern about child weight in the CFQ has been commonly used [19], it has been criticized that it is not possible to know whether the concern was about either current or future overweight or a combination of both [70,86]. This might have a varied influence on caregivers’ non-responsive feeding practices and be one of the sources of heterogeneities. Third, the heterogeneities might be due to the inconsistent confounding adjustment in the included studies. Some covariates (e.g., child sex, child temperament, and caregivers’ perception of child weight) had close links to caregivers’ non-responsive feeding practices [88,98]. However, some studies did not include these variables in the multivariate analysis, which might have contributed to the inconsistent findings and thus further affect the pooled estimates. Therefore, further studies should consider the confounding factors thoroughly when examining these relationships.

4.1. Limitations and Strengths

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review that comprehensively synthesized data on the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices. Our review included rigorous methodological procedures to obtain and pool data from 22,933 respondents. We also adopted a wide range of search terms to retrieve all potential articles published in English, including the grey literature. Furthermore, we used search terms indicating wider age ranges than our target age range to avoid missing relevant articles by omission. In addition, all estimates we provided for the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child overweight and their non-responsive feeding practices were adjusted for the covariates in the meta-analysis. However, there are several limitations to this systematic review and meta-analysis. First, some studies did not report a standard error or 95%CI, which precluded us from pooling all the extracted data to examine the associations. Thus, the results from the meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. Second, most studies with cross-sectional designs precluded us from establishing causal inferences. Third, all included studies employed self-reported questionnaires to assess our interest variables, which may be subject to recall bias. In addition, the included studies were mainly conducted in western countries such as the US and Australia. Findings from this systematic review might not be extrapolated to other populations (e.g., Asian).

4.2. Implications

More longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the impact of caregivers’ concern about child weight on their non-responsive feeding practices. Such studies should be adequately powered and include a representative sample. Second, validated instruments are required to assess caregivers’ concern about their children’s current and future weight separately. Third, more potential confounding factors (e.g., demographics, child temperament, and parental perception of child weight) should be taken into consideration for comprehensive analysis. Furthermore, it is essential for professionals and clinicians to provide guidance on how to manage and reduce caregivers’ concern about child weight, particularly among low-income families. It may help them implement appropriate feeding practices and eventually control their children’s weight.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review synthesized the evidence and indicated that caregivers’ concerns about child weight may be a significant risk factor for non-responsive feeding practices. Caregivers who are concerned about child overweight may be more likely to adopt restrictive feeding and less likely to use food as a reward. They might more frequently apply pressure to eat when they were concerned about child underweight. Given the consequences of non-responsive feeding practices and the role of caregivers’ concern about child weight on the use of such practices, interventions that manage and reduce caregivers’ excessive concern about child underweight or overweight may help to optimize feeding practices and eventually contribute to child health. Additionally, future prospective and experimental, theory-driven studies using validated measurements and representative sampling while controlling for potential covariates are needed to provide more evidence with regard to these causal relationships.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu14142885/s1, Table S1: Quality appraisal by the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies; Table S2: Quality appraisal by the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies; Table S3: Related measurements and the estimates of the relationships between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices (n = 35).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: J.W., Y.C., Y.-S.C. and K.W.; Data curation: J.W., X.W. and Y.C.; Formal analysis: J.W., Y.C. and X.W.; Investigation: J.W. and Y.C.; Methodology: J.W. and Y.C.; Project administration: J.W., Y.C., Y.-S.C. and K.W.; Supervision: Y.C. and J.W.; Validation: J.W. and Y.C.; Software: J.W.; Visualization: J.W.; Writing—original draft: J.W. and Y.C.; Writing—review & editing: Y.C., J.W., A.H., Y.-S.C. and K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study did not directly involve any human samples; therefore, ethical approval was not required for this study. However, the systematic review and meta-analysis protocol is registered in the online platform “PROSPERO” with the registration number “CRD42022304697”.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the article and its supplementary materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Obesity and Overweight [EB/OL]. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  2. Körner, A.; Kratzsch, J.; Gausche, R.; Schaab, M.; Erbs, S.; Kiess, W. New predictors of the metabolic syndrome in children—Role of adipocytokines. Pediatr. Res. 2007, 61, 640–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Gordon-Larsen, P.; Adair, L.S.; Nelson, M.C.; Popkin, B.M. Five-year obesity incidence in the transition period between adolescence and adulthood: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 80, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Geng, T.; Smith, C.E.; Li, C.; Huang, T. Childhood BMI and Adult Type 2 Diabetes, Coronary Artery Diseases, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Cardiometabolic Traits: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis. Diabetes Care 2018, 41, 1089–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Silventoinen, K.; Rokholm, B.; Kaprio, J.; Sørensen, T.I. The genetic and environmental influences on childhood obesity: A systematic review of twin and adoption studies. Int. J. Obes. 2010, 34, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Swinburn, B.A.; Sacks, G.; Hall, K.D.; McPherson, K.; Finegood, D.T.; Moodie, M.L.; Gortmaker, S.L. The global obesity pandemic: Shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet 2011, 378, 804–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. West, F.; Sanders, M.R. The Lifestyle Behaviour Checklist: A measure of weight-related problem behaviour in obese children. Int. J. Pediatr. Obes. 2009, 4, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ruzicka, E.B.; Darling, K.E.; Sato, A.F. Controlling child feeding practices and child weight: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes. Rev. 2021, 22, e13135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dev, D.A.; McBride, B.A.; Fiese, B.H.; Jones, B.L.; Cho, H. Risk factors for overweight/obesity in preschool children: An ecological approach. Child Obes. 2013, 9, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Faith, M.S.; Scanlon, K.S.; Birch, L.L.; Francis, L.A.; Sherry, B. Parent-child feeding strategies and their relationships to child eating and weight status. Obes. Res. 2004, 12, 1711–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boucheron, P.; Bhopal, S.; Verma, D.; Roy, R.; Kumar, D.; Divan, G.; Kirkwood, B. Observed feeding behaviours and effects on child weight and length at 12 months of age: Findings from the SPRING cluster-randomized controlled trial in rural India. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jansen, E.; Williams, K.E.; Mallan, K.M.; Nicholson, J.M.; Daniels, L.A. Bidirectional associations between mothers’ feeding practices and child eating behaviours. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Savage, J.S.; Rollins, B.Y.; Kugler, K.C.; Birch, L.L.; Marini, M.E. Development of a theory-based questionnaire to assess structure and control in parent feeding (SCPF). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Shi, C.; Li, N.; Dong, J.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Ji, C.; Wang, X.; Chi, X.; Guo, X.; Tong, M.; et al. Association between maternal nonresponsive feeding practice and child’s eating behavior and weight status: Children aged 1 to 6 years. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2017, 176, 1603–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Vaughn, A.E.; Ward, D.S.; Fisher, J.O.; Faith, M.S.; Hughes, S.O.; Kremers, S.P.; Musher-Eizenman, D.R.; O’Connor, T.M.; Patrick, H.; Power, T.G. Fundamental constructs in food parenting practices: A content map to guide future research. Nutr. Rev. 2016, 74, 98–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Beckers, D.; Karssen, L.T.; Vink, J.M.; Burk, W.J.; Larsen, J.K. Food parenting practices and children’s weight outcomes: A systematic review of prospective studies. Appetite 2021, 158, 105010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Golan, M.; Crow, S. Targeting parents exclusively in the treatment of childhood obesity: Long-term results. Obes. Res. 2004, 12, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moore, S.N.; Tapper, K.; Murphy, S. Feeding goals sought by mothers of 3-5-year-old children. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2010, 15 Pt 1, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Birch, L.L.; Fisher, J.O.; Grimm-Thomas, K.; Markey, C.N.; Sawyer, R.; Johnson, S.L. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Child Feeding Questionnaire: A measure of parental attitudes, beliefs and practices about child feeding and obesity proneness. Appetite 2001, 36, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Costanzo, P.R.; Woody, E.Z. Domain-specific parenting styles and their impact on the child’s development of particular deviance: The example of obesity proneness. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1985, 3, 425–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Srivastava, D.; Zheng, L.R.; Dev, D.A. Examining correlates of feeding practices among parents of preschoolers. Nutr. Health 2021, 2601060211032886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Somaraki, M.; Eli, K.; Ek, A.; Lindberg, L.; Nyman, J.; Marcus, C.; Flodmark, C.E.; Pietrobelli, A.; Faith, M.S.; Sorjonen, K.; et al. Controlling feeding practices and maternal migrant background: An analysis of a multicultural sample. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 20, 848–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Costa, A.; Hetherington, M.M.; Oliveira, A. Maternal perception, concern and dissatisfaction with child weight and their association with feeding practices in the Generation XXI birth cohort. Br. J. Nutr. 2021, 127, 1106–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Francis, L.A.; Hofer, S.M.; Birch, L.L. Predictors of maternal child-feeding style: Maternal and child characteristics. Appetite 2001, 37, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jani Mehta, R.; Mallan, K.M.; Mihrshahi, S.; Mandalika, S.; Daniels, L.A. An exploratory study of associations between Australian- Indian mothers’ use of controlling feeding practices, concerns and perceptions of children’s weight and children’s picky eating. Nutr. Diet. 2014, 71, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Webb, H.J.; Haycraft, E. Parental body dissatisfaction and controlling child feeding practices: A prospective study of Australian parent-child dyads. Eat. Behav. 2019, 32, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Haines, J.; Downing, K.L.; Tang, L.; Campbell, K.J.; Hesketh, K.D. Associations between maternal concern about child’s weight and related behaviours and maternal weight-related parenting practices: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Mais, L.A.; Warkentin, S.; Latorre, M.D.; Carnell, S.; Taddei, J.A. Parental Feeding Practices among Brazilian School-Aged Children: Associations with Parent and Child Characteristics. Front. Nutr. 2017, 4, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Gebru, N.W.; Gebreyesus, S.H.; Habtemariam, E.; Yirgu, R.; Abebe, D.S. Caregivers’ feeding practices in Ethiopia: Association with caregiver and child characteristics. J. Nutr. Sci. 2021, 10, e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Warkentin, S.; Mais, L.A.; Latorre, M.; Carnell, S.; de Aguiar CarrazedoTaddei, J.A. Relationships between parent feeding behaviors and parent and child characteristics in Brazilian preschoolers: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stroup, D.F.; Berlin, J.A.; Morton, S.C.; Olkin, I.; Williamson, G.D.; Rennie, D.; Moher, D.; Becker, B.J.; Sipe, T.A.; Thacker, S.B. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2000, 283, 2008–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Morgan, R.L.; Whaley, P.; Thayer, K.A.; Schünemann, H.J. Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environ. Int. 2018, 121 Pt 1, 1027–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Child Development. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/childdevelopment/positiveparenting/index.html (accessed on 14 May 2022).
  35. Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J.; Skinner, E.A. Review: The development of coping across childhood and adolescence: An integrative review and critique of research. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2010, 35, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Montroy, J.J.; Bowles, R.P.; Skibbe, L.E.; McClelland, M.M.; Morrison, F.J. The development of self-regulation across early childhood. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 52, 1744–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mah, V.K.; Ford-Jones, E.L. Spotlight on middle childhood: Rejuvenating the ‘forgotten years’. Paediatr. Child Health 2012, 17, 81–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Musher-Eizenman, D.R.; Goodman, L.; Roberts, L.; Marx, J.; Taylor, M.; Hoffmann, D. An examination of food parenting practices: Structure, control and autonomy promotion. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 814–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Di Pasquale, R.; Rivolta, A. A Conceptual Analysis of Food Parenting Practices in the Light of Self-Determination Theory: Relatedness-Enhancing, Competence-Enhancing and Autonomy-Enhancing Food Parenting Practices. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. O’Connor, T.M.; Mâsse, L.C.; Tu, A.W.; Watts, A.W.; Hughes, S.O.; Beauchamp, M.R.; Baranowski, T.; Pham, T.; Berge, J.M.; Fiese, B. Food parenting practices for 5 to 12 year old children: A concept map analysis of parenting and nutrition experts input. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Rodgers, R.F.; Paxton, S.J.; Massey, R.; Campbell, K.J.; Wertheim, E.H.; Skouteris, H.; Gibbons, K. Maternal feeding practices predict weight gain and obesogenic eating behaviors in young children: A prospective study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Arlinghaus, K.R.; Hernandez, D.C.; Eagleton, S.G.; Chen, T.A.; Power, T.G.; Hughes, S.O. Exploratory factor analysis of The Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ) in a low-income hispanic sample of preschool aged children. Appetite 2019, 140, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yuan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, T.; Zhang, H.; Lu, Z.; Yang, X.; Hu, M.; Yu, L.; Yu, L.; Jiang, X.; et al. Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Chinese Preschoolers’ Caregivers’ Feeding Behavior Scale. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2019, 119, 1890–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jansen, E.; Williams, K.E.; Mallan, K.M.; Nicholson, J.M.; Daniels, L.A. The Feeding Practices and Structure Questionnaire (FPSQ-28): A parsimonious version validated for longitudinal use from 2 to 5 years. Appetite 2016, 100, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kidwell, K.M.; Tomaso, C.; Lundahl, A.; Nelson, T.D. Confirmatory factor analysis of the parental feeding style questionnaire with a preschool sample. Eat. Weight Disord. 2020, 25, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI Critical Appraisal Tools Adelaide; Joanna Briggs Institut: Adelaide, Australia, 2020; Available online: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools (accessed on 22 February 2022).
  47. Collins, C.; Duncanson, K.; Burrows, T. A systematic review investigating associations between parenting style and child feeding behaviours. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2014, 27, 557–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zhu, D.Q.; Norman, I.J.; While, A.E. The relationship between doctors’ and nurses’ own weight status and their weight management practices: A systematic review. Obes. Rev. 2011, 12, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, J.; Zhu, B.; Wu, R.; Chang, Y.S.; Cao, Y.; Zhu, D. Bidirectional Associations between Parental Non-Responsive Feeding Practices and Child Eating Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Prospective Studies. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. de Souza Rezende, P.; Bellotto de Moraes, D.E.; Mais, L.A.; Warkentin, S.; Augusto de Aguiar Carrazedo Taddei, J. Maternal pressure to eat: Associations with maternal and child characteristics among 2-to 8-year-olds in Brazil. Appetite 2019, 133, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Higgins, J.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0.; The Cochrane Collaboration: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  53. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Egger, M.; Davey Smith, G.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Tobias, A. Assessing the influence of a single study in the meta-analysis estimate. Stata Tech. Bull. 1999, 8, 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lo, K.; Cheung, C.; Lee, A.; Keung, V.; Tam, W. Associated Demographic Factors of Instrumental and Emotional Feeding in Parents of Hong Kong Children. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2016, 116, 1925–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Russell, C.G.; Haszard, J.J.; Taylor, R.W.; Heath, A.M.; Taylor, B.; Campbell, K.J. Parental feeding practices associated with children’s eating and weight: What are parents of toddlers and preschool children doing? Appetite 2018, 128, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Eichler, J.; Schmidt, R.; Poulain, T.; Hiemisch, A.; Kiess, W.; Hilbert, A. Stability, Continuity, and Bi-Directional Associations of Parental Feeding Practices and Standardized Child Body Mass Index in Children from 2 to 12 Years of Age. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Haycraft, E.L.; Blissett, J.M. Maternal and paternal controlling feeding practices: Reliability and relationships with BMI. Obesity 2008, 16, 1552–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Moreira, I.; Severo, M.; Oliveira, A.; Durão, C.; Moreira, P.; Barros, H.; Lopes, C. Social and health behavioural determinants of maternal child-feeding patterns in preschool-aged children. Matern. Child Nutr. 2016, 12, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, W.Y.; Burrows, T.; MacDonald-Wicks, L.; Williams, L.T.; Collins, C.E.; Chee, W.S.S. Parent-child feeding practices in a developing country: Findings from the Family Diet Study. Appetite 2018, 125, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jiang, J.; Rosenqvist, U.; Wang, H.; Greiner, T.; Lian, G.; Sarkadi, A. Influence of grandparents on eating behaviors of young children in Chinese three-generation families. Appetite 2007, 48, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Steinsbekk, S.; Belsky, J.; Wichstrøm, L. Parental Feeding and Child Eating: An Investigation of Reciprocal Effects. Child Dev. 2016, 87, 1538–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Musher-Eizenman, D.; Holub, S. Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire: Validation of a new measure of parental feeding practices. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2007, 32, 960–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Branch, J.M.; Appugliese, D.P.; Rosenblum, K.L.; Miller, A.L.; Lumeng, J.C.; Bauer, K.W. Feeding and Mealtime Correlates of Maternal Concern About Children’s Weight. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2017, 49, 490–496.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Cachelin, F.M.; Thompson, D. Predictors of maternal child-feeding practices in an ethnically diverse sample and the relationship to child obesity. Obesity 2013, 21, 1676–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Bouhlal, S.; Abrams, L.R.; McBride, C.M.; Persky, S. Cognitive and affective factors linking mothers’ perceived weight history to child feeding. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 72, 1583–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Brann, L.S. Child-feeding practices and child overweight perceptions of family day care providers caring for preschool-aged children. J. Pediatr. Health Care 2010, 24, 312–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Tan, C.C.; Holub, S.C. Children’s self-regulation in eating: Associations with inhibitory control and parents’ feeding behavior. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2011, 36, 340–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Loth, K.A.; Mohamed, N.; Trofholz, A.; Tate, A.; Berge, J.M. Associations between parental perception of- and concern about-child weight and use of specific food-related parenting practices. Appetite 2021, 160, 105068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. May, A.L.; Donohue, M.; Scanlon, K.S.; Sherry, B.; Dalenius, K.; Faulkner, P.; Birch, L.L. Child-feeding strategies are associated with maternal concern about children becoming overweight, but not children’s weight status. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2007, 107, 1167–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Seburg, E.M.; Kunin-Batson, A.; Senso, M.M.; Crain, A.L.; Langer, S.L.; Sherwood, N.E. Concern about Child Weight among Parents of Children At-Risk for Obesity. Health Behav. Policy Rev. 2014, 1, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Ayine, P.; Selvaraju, V.; Venkatapoorna, C.M.K.; Geetha, T. Parental Feeding Practices in Relation to Maternal Education and Childhood Obesity. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. de Lauzon-Guillain, B.; Musher-Eizenman, D.; Leporc, E.; Holub, S.; Charles, M.A. Parental feeding practices in the United States and in France: Relationships with child’s characteristics and parent’s eating behavior. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2009, 109, 1064–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Rodgers, R.F.; Paxton, S.J.; McLean, S.A.; Campbell, K.J.; Wertheim, E.H.; Skouteris, H.; Gibbons, K. Do maternal body dissatisfaction and dietary restraint predict weight gain in young pre-school children? A 1-year follow-up study. Appetite 2013, 67, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Mallan, K.M.; Daniels, L.A.; Nothard, M.; Nicholson, J.M.; Wilson, A.; Cameron, C.M.; Scuffham, P.A.; Thorpe, K. Dads at the dinner table. A cross-sectional study of Australian fathers’ child feeding perceptions and practices. Appetite 2014, 73, 40–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Gregory, J.E.; Paxton, S.J.; Brozovic, A.M. Pressure to eat and restriction are associated with child eating behaviours and maternal concern about child weight, but not child body mass index, in 2- to 4-year-old children. Appetite 2010, 54, 550–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Crouch, P.; O’Dea, J.A.; Battisti, R. Child feeding practices and perceptions of childhood overweight and childhood obesity risk among mothers of preschool children. Nutr. Diet. 2007, 64, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Freitas, F.R.; Moraes, D.E.B.; Warkentin, S.; Mais, L.A.; Ivers, J.F.; Taddei, J. Maternal restrictive feeding practices for child weight control and associated characteristics. J. Pediatr. 2019, 95, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Ek, A.; Sorjonen, K.; Eli, K.; Lindberg, L.; Nyman, J.; Marcus, C.; Nowicka, P. Associations between Parental Concerns about Preschoolers’ Weight and Eating and Parental Feeding Practices: Results from Analyses of the Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire, the Child Feeding Questionnaire, and the Lifestyle Behavior Checklist. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Eli, K.; Sorjonen, K.; Mokoena, L.; Pietrobelli, A.; Flodmark, C.E.; Faith, M.S.; Nowicka, P. Associations between maternal sense of coherence and controlling feeding practices: The importance of resilience and support in families of preschoolers. Appetite 2016, 105, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nowicka, P.; Sorjonen, K.; Pietrobelli, A.; Flodmark, C.E.; Faith, M.S. Parental feeding practices and associations with child weight status. Swedish validation of the Child Feeding Questionnaire finds parents of 4-year-olds less restrictive. Appetite 2014, 81, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Xiang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Yong, C.; Xi, Y.; Huo, J.; Zou, H.; Liang, J.; Jiang, Z.; Lin, Q. Association between Parents’ Perceptions of Preschool Children’s Weight, Feeding Practices and Children’s Dietary Patterns: A Cross-Sectional Study in China. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, J.; Zhu, D.; Cheng, X.; LiuZhou, Y.; Zhu, B.; Montgomery, S.; Cao, Y. Maternal perception of child weight and concern about child overweight mediates the relationship between child weight and feeding practices. Public Health Nutr. 2022, 25, 1780–1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Derks, I.P.; Tiemeier, H.; Sijbrands, E.J.; Nicholson, J.M.; Voortman, T.; Verhulst, F.C.; Jaddoe, V.W.; Jansen, P.W. Testing the direction of effects between child body composition and restrictive feeding practices: Results from a population-based cohort. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 106, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Webber, L.; Hill, C.; Cooke, L.; Carnell, S.; Wardle, J. Associations between child weight and maternal feeding styles are mediated by maternal perceptions and concerns. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 64, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Salinas Martínez, A.M.; Cordero Franco, H.F.; Estrada de León, D.B.; Medina Franco, G.E.; Guzmán de la Garza, F.J.; Núñez Rocha, G.M. Estimating and differentiating maternal feeding practices in a country ranked first in childhood obesity. Public Health Nutr. 2020, 23, 620–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Chae, S.-M.; Ra, J.S. Maternal Weight Control Behaviors for Preschoolers Related to Children’s Gender. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Baughcum, A.E.; Powers, S.W.; Johnson, S.B.; Chamberlin, L.A.; Deeks, C.M.; Jain, A.; Whitaker, R.C. Maternal feeding practices and beliefs and their relationships to overweight in early childhood. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2001, 22, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zheng, L.; Song, D.; Chen, C.; Li, F.; Zhu, D. Reliability and validity of a Chinese version of Child Feeding Questionnaire among parents of preschoolers. Chin. J. Child Health Care 2016, 24, 1019–1023. [Google Scholar]
  91. Puhl, R.M.; Heuer, C.A. Obesity stigma: Important considerations for public health. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 1019–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Barlow, S.E. Expert committee recommendations regarding the prevention, assessment, and treatment of child and adolescent overweight and obesity: Summary report. Pediatrics 2007, 120 (Suppl. 4), S164–S192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Brown, C.L.; Pesch, M.H.; Perrin, E.M.; Appugliese, D.P.; Miller, A.L.; Rosenblum, K.; Lumeng, J.C. Maternal Concern for Child Undereating. Acad. Pediatr. 2016, 16, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Afonso, L.; Lopes, C.; Severo, M.; Santos, S.; Real, H.; Durao, C.; Moreira, P.; Oliveira, A. Bidirectional association between parental child-feeding practices and body mass index at 4 and 7 y of age. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 103, 861–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Scaglioni, S.; De Cosmi, V.; Ciappolino, V.; Parazzini, F.; Brambilla, P.; Agostoni, C. Factors Influencing Children’s Eating Behaviours. Nutrients 2018, 10, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Holley, C.E.; Farrow, C.; Haycraft, E. Investigating the role of parent and child characteristics in healthy eating intervention outcomes. Appetite 2016, 105, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Birch, L.L.; McPhee, L.; Shoba, B.C.; Steinberg, L.; Krehbiel, R. “Clean up your plate”: Effects of child feeding practices on the conditioning of meal size. Learn. Motiv. 1987, 18, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Chang, L.Y.; Mendelsohn, A.L.; Fierman, A.H.; Au, L.Y.; Messito, M.J. Perception of Child Weight and Feeding Styles in Parents of Chinese-American Preschoolers. J. Immigr. Minority Health 2017, 19, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Jansen, P.W.; de Barse, L.M.; Jaddoe, V.W.V.; Verhulst, F.C.; Franco, O.H.; Tiemeier, H. Bi-directional associations between child fussy eating and parents’ pressure to eat: Who influences whom? Physiol. Behav. 2017, 176, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhou, N.; Cheah, C.S.L.; Van Hook, J.; Thompson, D.A.; Jones, S.S. A cultural understanding of Chinese immigrant mothers’ feeding practices. A qualitative study. Appetite 2015, 87, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Li, B.; Adab, P.; Cheng, K.K. The role of grandparents in childhood obesity in China—Evidence from a mixed methods study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Nankumbi, J.; Muliira, J.K. Barriers to infant and child-feeding practices: A qualitative study of primary caregivers in Rural Uganda. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 2015, 33, 106–116. [Google Scholar]
Nutrients 14 02885 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for screening and selection of articles.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for screening and selection of articles.
Nutrients 14 02885 g001
Nutrients 14 02885 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of concern about child overweight on restrictive feeding (evaluated using β) [21,22,23,26,27,29,74,76,83,84,85].
Figure 2. Effects of concern about child overweight on restrictive feeding (evaluated using β) [21,22,23,26,27,29,74,76,83,84,85].
Nutrients 14 02885 g002
Nutrients 14 02885 g003 550
Figure 3. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limit for the studies exploring the effects of concern about child overweight on restrictive feeding (evaluated using β).
Figure 3. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limit for the studies exploring the effects of concern about child overweight on restrictive feeding (evaluated using β).
Nutrients 14 02885 g003
Nutrients 14 02885 g004 550
Figure 4. Pooled βs of the associations between concern about child overweight and restrictive feeding in leave-one-out analysis [21,22,23,26,27,29,74,76,83,84,85].
Figure 4. Pooled βs of the associations between concern about child overweight and restrictive feeding in leave-one-out analysis [21,22,23,26,27,29,74,76,83,84,85].
Nutrients 14 02885 g004
Nutrients 14 02885 g005 550
Figure 5. Effects of concern about child overweight on restrictive feeding (evaluated using OR) [30,71,79,87,88].
Figure 5. Effects of concern about child overweight on restrictive feeding (evaluated using OR) [30,71,79,87,88].
Nutrients 14 02885 g005
Nutrients 14 02885 g006 550
Figure 6. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limit for the studies exploring the effects of concern about child overweight on restrictive feeding (evaluated using OR).
Figure 6. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limit for the studies exploring the effects of concern about child overweight on restrictive feeding (evaluated using OR).
Nutrients 14 02885 g006
Nutrients 14 02885 g007 550
Figure 7. Pooled ORs for restrictive feeding of the concern about overweight group vs. non-concern about overweight group in leave-one-out analysis [30,71,79,87,88].
Figure 7. Pooled ORs for restrictive feeding of the concern about overweight group vs. non-concern about overweight group in leave-one-out analysis [30,71,79,87,88].
Nutrients 14 02885 g007
Nutrients 14 02885 g008 550
Figure 8. Effects of concern about child overweight on pressure to eat (evaluated using β) [21,22,23,26,27,29,76,83].
Figure 8. Effects of concern about child overweight on pressure to eat (evaluated using β) [21,22,23,26,27,29,76,83].
Nutrients 14 02885 g008
Nutrients 14 02885 g009 550
Figure 9. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limit for the studies exploring the effects of concern about child overweight on pressure to eat (evaluated using β).
Figure 9. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limit for the studies exploring the effects of concern about child overweight on pressure to eat (evaluated using β).
Nutrients 14 02885 g009
Nutrients 14 02885 g010 550
Figure 10. Pooled βs of the associations between concern about child overweight and pressure to eat in leave-one-out analysis [21,22,23,26,27,29,76,83].
Figure 10. Pooled βs of the associations between concern about child overweight and pressure to eat in leave-one-out analysis [21,22,23,26,27,29,76,83].
Nutrients 14 02885 g010
Nutrients 14 02885 g011 550
Figure 11. Effects of concern about child overweight/underweight on pressure to eat (evaluated using OR) [30,50,71,87].
Figure 11. Effects of concern about child overweight/underweight on pressure to eat (evaluated using OR) [30,50,71,87].
Nutrients 14 02885 g011
Nutrients 14 02885 g012 550
Figure 12. Effects of concern about child overweight on use of food as a reward (evaluated using β) [27,74,83,84].
Figure 12. Effects of concern about child overweight on use of food as a reward (evaluated using β) [27,74,83,84].
Nutrients 14 02885 g012
Nutrients 14 02885 g013 550
Figure 13. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limit for the studies exploring the effects of concern about child overweight on use of food as a reward (evaluated using β).
Figure 13. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limit for the studies exploring the effects of concern about child overweight on use of food as a reward (evaluated using β).
Nutrients 14 02885 g013
Nutrients 14 02885 g014 550
Figure 14. Pooled βs of the associations between concern about child overweight and use of food as a reward in leave-one-out analysis [27,74,84,87].
Figure 14. Pooled βs of the associations between concern about child overweight and use of food as a reward in leave-one-out analysis [27,74,84,87].
Nutrients 14 02885 g014
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies (n = 35).
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies (n = 35).
First Author, YearCountryStudy DesignCaregiversAge of Children Sampling MethodSample SizeResponse Rate
Xiang, 2021 [83]ChinaCross-sectional studyParents 4.54 ± 0.85 yearsRandom cluster sampling1616100%
Branch, 2017 [65]USCross-sectional studyMothers 5.39 ± 0.75 yearsVoluntary (response) sample26466.50%
(264/397)
Francis, 2001 [24]USCross-sectional studyMothers 5.4 ± 0.02 yearsVoluntary (response) sample19699.49%
(196/197)
Freitas, 2019 [79]BrazilCross-sectional studyMothers 2–8 yearsVoluntary (response) sample83570.88%
(835/1178)
Webber, 2010 [86]UKCross-sectional studyMothers8.3 ± 0.63 yearsVoluntary (response) sample21352.59%
213/405
Gebru, 2021 [29]EthiopiaCross-sectional studyCaregivers
(mother/father/grandmother and other)		4.5 ± 0.04 yearsMulti-stage random sampling52596.86%
(525/542)
de Souza Rezende, 2019 [50]BrazilCross-sectional studyMothers4.98 ± 1.8 yearsVoluntary (response) sample92778.69%
(927/1178)
Mais, 2017 [28]BrazilCross-sectional studyParents5–9 yearsSecondary data65946.08%
(659/1430)
Cachelin, 2013 [66]USCross-sectional studyMothers 2–11 yearsVoluntary (response) sample42575.49%
(425/563)
Ek, 2016 [80]SwedenCross-sectional studyParents5.5 ± 1.0 yearsRepresentative sample47851.34%
(478/931)
Derks, 2017 [85]NetherlandsLongitudinal study (cross-sectional relationship)Parents9.76 ± 0.29 yearsVoluntary (response) sample468954.85%
(4689/8548)
Eli, 2016 [81]SwedenCross-sectional studyMothers 4.5 ± 0.4 yearsVoluntary
(response) sample		87629.13%
(876/3007)
Gregory, 2010 [77]AustraliaCross-sectional studyMothers3.3 ± 0.84 yearsVoluntary (response) sample183100%
(183/183)
Wang, 2022 [84]ChinaCross-sectional studyMothers 4.56 ± 1.35 yearsConvenience sample110695.02% (1106/1164)
Haines, 2018 [27]AustraliaCross-sectional studyMothers5.0 ± 0.1 yearsRandom sample31058.71%
(310/528)
Bouhlal, 2018 [67]USCross-sectional studyMothers 4–5 yearsRandom sample221100%
de Lauzon-Guillain, 2009 [74]US and FranceCross-sectional studyParents 3.7–6.8 yearsNot clear219100%
Srivastava, 2021 [21]USCross-sectional studyParents3.95 ± 0.75 yearsVoluntary (response) sample27331.67%
(273/862)
Brann, 2010 [68]USCross-sectional studyCaregivers 4.5 ± 1.5 yearsVoluntary (response) sample12341.28%
(123/298)
Webb, 2019 [26]AustraliaLongitudinal studyParents 7.6 ± 0.8 yearsVoluntary (response) sample48100%
Warkentin, 2018 [30]BrazilCross-sectional studyParents 2-5 yearsVoluntary (response) sample40240.36%
(402/996)
Tan, 2011 [69]USCross-sectional studyParents3–9 years (mean age 5.6 years)Voluntary (response) sample63100%
Somaraki, 2017 [22]SwedenCross-sectional studyMothers 4-7 years (mean age 4.8 years)Population sample128496.91%
(1284/1325)
Salinas Martínez, 2020 [87]MexicoCross-sectional studyMothers 4.0 ± 1.2 yearsConsecutive selection sample507100%
Rodgers, 2013 [75]AustraliaCross-sectional studyMothers 2.03 ± 0.37 yearsVoluntary (response) sample21899.09%
(218/220)
Loth, 2021 [70]USCross-sectional studyParents6.4 ± 0.8 yearsVoluntary (response) sample149149/150
(99.33%)
Mallan, 2014 [76]AustraliaCross-sectional studyFathers 3.5 ± 0.9 yearsVoluntary (response) sample34278.44%
(342/436)
Chae, 2018 [88]South KoreaCross-sectional studyMothers 3–5 yearsConvenience sample223100%
Costa, 2021 [23]Portugal Longitudinal study (cross-sectional relationship)Mothers4–7 years
(4 years at the baseline)		National population sample323338.73%
(3233/8647)
May, 2007 [71]USCross-sectional studyMothers24–59 monthsVoluntary (response) sample96773.87%
(967/1309)
Seburg, 2014 [72]USCross-sectional studyParents 6.6 ± 1.7 yearsVoluntary (response) sample39192.87%
(391/421)
Crouch, 2007 [78]AustraliaCross-sectional studyMothers4.42 ± 1.35 yearsVoluntary (response) sample11199.11%
(111/112)
Ayine, 2020 [73]USCross-sectional studyParents 6–10 years (mean age 8.42 years)Voluntary (response) sample169100%
Jani Mehta, 2014 [25]IndiaCross-sectional studyMothers34 ± 14 monthsConvenience sample20388.26%
(203/230)
Nowicka, 2014 [82]SwedenCross-sectional studyParents4.5 ± 0.3 yearsNational population sample56418.76%
(564/3007)
Table
Table 2. Summary of the associations between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices (n = 35).
Table 2. Summary of the associations between caregivers’ concern about child weight and their non-responsive feeding practices (n = 35).
First Author, YearConcern about Child Weight → Non-Responsive Feeding Practices
RestrictionPressure to EatFood as a RewardEmotional Feeding
Ayine, 2020 [73]+ a,1Φ a,1
Francis, 2001 [24]Φ a,2Φ a,2
Freitas, 2019 [79]+ b,2
Webber, 2010 [86]+ c,2Φ c,2
Loth, 2021 [70]+ c,2Φ c,2
May, 2007 [71]+ b,2
Φ b,2 (PEA)
− b,2 (PEE)
Φ b,2 (PER)
Gebru, 2021 [29]+ e,2
Φ d,2		− e,2
+ d,2
Crouch, 2007 [78]+ a,2
de Souza Rezende, 2019 [50] + g,1
Jani Mehta, 2014 [25]Φ f,1Φ f,1
Salinas Martínez, 2020 [87]+ b,2Φ b,2 Φ b,2
Mais, 2017 [28]+ b,2 (RFW)
+ b,2 (RFH)
Φ g,2 (RFW)
Φ g,2 (RFH)		Φ b,2
+ g,2		Φ b,2
Φ g,2
Nowicka, 2014 [82]+ a,2
Costa, 2021 [23]+ b,2 (4 y)
+ b,2 (7 y)		Φ b,2 (4 y)
Φ b,2 (7 y)
Wang 2022 [84]+ e,2 − e,2
Xiang, 2021 [83]− b,2 (underweight children)
+ b,2 (normal weight children)
Φ b,2 (overweight children)		Φ b,2 (underweight children)
Φ b,2 (normal weight children)
Φ b,2 (overweight children)		Φ b,2 (underweight children)
Φ b,2 (normal weight children)
Φ b,2 (overweight children)
Branch, 2017 [65]+ c,2Φ c,2
Cachelin, 2013 [66]+ a,2 (Hispanic model)
+ a,2 (White model)
Ek, 2016 [80]+ a,2Φ a,2
Derks, 2017 [85]+ e,2 (model 1)
+ e,2 (model 2)
+ e,2 (model 3)
Eli, 2016 [81]+ a,2Φ a,2
Gregory, 2010 [77]+ e,2
Φ d,2		Φ e,2
+ d,2
Haines, 2018 [27]+ b,2
+ g,2		Φ b,2
+ g,2		Φ b,2
+ g,2		Φ b,2
Φ g,2
Bouhlal, 2018 [67]+ a,2
de Lauzon-Guillain, 2009 [74]+ e,2 (RFW)
+ e,2 (RFH)		 Φ e,2Φ e,2
Srivastava, 2021 [21]+ a,2− a,2
Brann, 2010 [68]+ a,1+ a,1
Webb, 2019 [26]Φ a,2 (RFW)
Φ a,2 (RFH)		Φ a,2
Warkentin, 2018 [30]+ b,2 (RFW)
Φ b,2 (RFH)
Φ g,2 (RFW)
Φ g,2 (RFH)		Φ b,2
+ g,2		Φ b,2
Φ g,2
Tan, 2011 [69]+ a,1 (RFW)
+ a,1 (RFH)
Somaraki, 2017 [22]+ a,2− a,2
Rodgers, 2013 [75]+ a,2
Mallan, 2014 [76]+ a,2+ a,2
Chae, 2018 [88]+ b,2
Seburg, 2014 [72]+ a,2Φ a,2
Number of significant associations401220
Total number of tested associations5234114
Number of articles342463
NOTES. a Predictor: Concern about child weight (CFQ, continuous variable); b Predictor: Not concern about child overweight vs. Concern about child overweight; c Predictor: Not concern about child overweight vs. Little concern about child overweight vs. Concern about child overweight; d Predictor: Concern about child underweight (continuous variable); e Predictor: Concern about child overweight (continuous variable); f Predictor: Not concern about child weight vs. Concern about child weight; g Predictor: Not concern about child underweight vs. Concern about child underweight. 1 Not control for covariates; 2 Control for covariates. +, positive and statistically significant association between predictor and outcome; −, negative and statistically significant association between predictor and outcome; Φ, statistically non-significant association between predictor and outcome. RFW: restriction for weight; RFH: restriction for health; PEA: Pressure to eat all; PEE: Pressure to eat enough; PER: Pressure to eat right food.
Table
Table 3. Subgroup analysis of the effects of caregivers’ concern about child weight and their feeding practices.
Table 3. Subgroup analysis of the effects of caregivers’ concern about child weight and their feeding practices.
Exposure/Outcome Eligible
Studies		Effect SizeEffect Estimates (95% CI)p Value for
Heterogeneity		I2 (%)p Value between
Groups
Concern about Child Overweight/Restriction
Outcome measure beta 0.636
CFQ8 0.203 (0.103, 0.303)<0.00196.0
CFPQ3 0.288 (−0.055, 0.631)<0.00191.3
Exposure measure 0.740
Two/three items6 0.201 (0.071, 0.331)<0.00196.1
One item5 0.223 (0.109, 0.337)<0.00186.3
Country 0.220
Developed country9 0.245 (0.148, 0.342)<0.00194.2
Developing country2 0.101 (0.053, 0.149)0.3270.0
Sample size 0.978
<5005 0.214 (0.062, 0.365)<0.00185.7
≥5006 0.218 (0.105, 0.331)<0.00196.2
Children’s mean age 0.884
≤5 years old7 0.193 (0.089, 0.298)<0.00190.7
>5 years old2 0.171 (-0.192, 0.533)<0.00196.7
Child overweight/obesity 0.523
≤20%4 0.262 (0.084, 0.439)<0.00194.3
>20%2 0.154 (-0.022, 0.330)0.00289.9
Caregivers’ role 0.268
Mothers (only)4 0.293 (0.137, 0.450)<0.00193.3
Parents/grandparents/fathers7 0.174 (0.045, 0.303)<0.00195.9
Caregivers’ education 0.412
Less than half with
college degree or higher		2 0.104 (0.059, 0.150)0.8310.0
More than half with
college degree or higher		7 0.228 (0.090, 0.366)<0.00191.8
Family income 0.027
High-income percentage a below median level b3 0.320 (0.233, 0.408)0.00283.8
High-income percentage a above median level b3 0.126 (0.079, 0.172)0.30914.9
Concern about Child Overweight/Pressure to Eat
Outcome measure beta 0.613
CFQ6 −0.038 (−0.132, 0.056)<0.00183.8
CFPQ2 −0.157 (−0.535, 0.221)0.12457.7
Exposure measure 0.965
Two/three items5 −0.048 (−0.182, 0.086)<0.00186.2
One item3 −0.023 (−0.112, 0.065)0.19139.6
Country 0.880
Developed country7 −0.052 (−0.158, 0.053)<0.00182.0
Developing country1 −0.030 (−0.120, 0.060)//
Sample size 0.680
<5004 −0.056 (−0.291, 0.179)0.00182.1
≥5004 −0.066 (−0.133, 0.001)0.04363.2
Children’s mean age 0.773
≤5 years old6 −0.067 (−0.182, 0.048)0.00184.1
> 5 years old1 −0.010 (−0.230, 0.210)//
Child overweight/obesity 0.068
≤20%3 −0.123 (−0.178, −0.068)0.3621.5
>20%2 −0.008 (−0.067, 0.052)0.5150.0
Caregivers’ role 0.486
Mothers (only)3 −0.095 (−0.244, −0.060)<0.00177.5
Parents/grandparents/fathers5 −0.022 (−0.145, 0.101)0.01282.5
Caregivers’ education 0.237
Less than half with
college degree or higher		2 0.038 (−0.236, 0.312)<0.00194.8
More than half with
college degree or higher		5 −0.102 (−0.184, −0.021)0.16937.8
Family income 0.266
High-income percentage a below median level b1 0.010 (−0.070, 0.090)//
High-income percentage a above median level b2 −0.112 (−0.181, −0.043)0.4210.0
Concern about Child Overweight/Reward
Outcome measure beta 0.750
CFQ2 −0.063 (−0.119, -0.007)0.7580.0
CFPQ2 −0.027 (−0.214, 0.161)0.4540.0
Country 0.750
Developed country2 −0.027 (−0.214, 0.161)0.4540.0
Developing country2 −0.063 (−0.119, −0.007)0.7580.0
Sample size 0.750
<5002 −0.027 (−0.214, 0.161)0.4540.0
≥5002 −0.063 (−0.119, −0.007)0.7580.0
Child overweight/obesity 0.787
≤20%2 −0.071 (−0.138, −0.004)0.5870.0
>20%1 −0.050 (−0.150, 0.050)//
Caregivers’ role 0.638
Mothers (only)2 −0.071 (−0.138, −0.004)0.5870.0
Parents/grandparents/fathers2 −0.040 (−0.129, 0.049)0.6610.0
Concern about Child Overweight/Restriction
Outcome measure OR 0.413
CFQ1 5.940 (1.740, 20.279)//
CFPQ2 2.557 (2.012, 3.249)0.8170.0
Exposure measure 0.951
Two/three items1 2.460 (1.640, 3.690)//
One item4 2.378 (1.502, 3.766)0.04163.6
Country 0.289
Developed country2 3.808 (1.781, 8.142)0.3660.0
Developing country3 2.141 (1.515, 3.027)0.05864.9
Sample size 0.786
<5002 2.337 (1.347, 4.055)0.7630.0
≥5003 2.520 (1.734, 3.663)0.01974.7
Child overweight/obesity 0.656
≤20%1 2.89 (1.098, 7.604)//
>20%3 2.141 (1.515, 3.027)0.05864.9
Caregivers’ role 0.951
Mothers (only)4 2.378 (1.502, 3.766)0.04163.6
Parents/grandparents/fathers1 2.460 (1.640, 3.690)//
Notes. a: the percentage of the highest income category in each article or the percentage noted with high-income/wealthy family; b the median percentage of high-income families from included articles.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Wei, X.; Chang, Y.-S.; Hiyoshi, A.; Winkley, K.; Cao, Y. The Relationships between Caregivers’ Concern about Child Weight and Their Non-Responsive Feeding Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2885. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142885

AMA Style

Wang J, Wei X, Chang Y-S, Hiyoshi A, Winkley K, Cao Y. The Relationships between Caregivers’ Concern about Child Weight and Their Non-Responsive Feeding Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2022; 14(14):2885. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142885

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jian, Xiaoxue Wei, Yan-Shing Chang, Ayako Hiyoshi, Kirsty Winkley, and Yang Cao. 2022. "The Relationships between Caregivers’ Concern about Child Weight and Their Non-Responsive Feeding Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Nutrients 14, no. 14: 2885. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142885

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop