Next Article in Journal
Iron Intake and Human Health
Previous Article in Journal
Why Acute Undernutrition? A Qualitative Exploration of Food Preferences, Perceptions and Factors Underlying Diet in Adolescent Girls in Rural Communities in Nigeria
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/nu16020205
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:
Article

Dads at Mealtimes: Associations between Food Security, Household and Work Chaos, and Paternal Feeding Practices among Australian Fathers Living with Disadvantage

by
Jeffrey T. H. So
1,2,*,
Smita Nambiar
1,2,
Rebecca Byrne
1,2,
Danielle Gallegos
1,2 and
Kimberley A. Baxter
1,2
1
Centre for Childhood Nutrition Research, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, 62 Graham Street, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia
2
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2024, 16(2), 205; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16020205
Submission received: 13 December 2023 / Revised: 3 January 2024 / Accepted: 5 January 2024 / Published: 8 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Nutrition and Public Health)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Understanding how fathers engage in feeding while experiencing disadvantage is important for family-focused interventions. A cross-sectional online survey involving 264 Australian fathers was conducted to explore feeding involvement and the relationships between feeding practices, food insecurity, and household and work chaos. Practices related to coercive control, structure, and autonomy support were measured for two age groups (<2 years and 2–5 years). Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the associations for each practice. Three-quarters of the sample were food insecure, impacting adults more than children, and correlated with household chaos. Food insecurity was associated with increased ‘persuasive feeding’ and ‘parent-led feeding’ in younger children. Household chaos was positively associated with coercive control practices in both younger and older child groups, with the strongest associations for ‘using food to calm’ and ‘overt restriction’, respectively. In older child groups, household chaos was negatively associated with ‘offer new foods’ and ‘repeated presentation of new foods’. Structure practices had no significant relationships with any factors, and work chaos did not predict any feeding practices. These findings emphasize a need for societal and structural support to address food insecurity and household chaos. Tailored strategies are crucial to support fathers in responsive feeding.

1. Introduction

The Nurturing Care Framework proposes that children need good health, adequate nutrition, safety and security, learning opportunities, and responsive caregiving for optimal early childhood development [1]. Optimal nutrition is key to supporting children’s physical and cognitive development and maintaining a healthy weight [2]. However, in Australia, only 4% of children meet fruit and vegetable recommendations [2], and more than one-fifth of children consume sugar-sweetened beverages at least once a week [3]. Children living with disadvantage in their first year of school are also three times more likely to be vulnerable across two or more developmental domains, particularly in the areas of physical health and wellbeing, and language and cognitive skills [4]. In the early years, parents, including fathers, play an integral role in providing nurturing care and feeding of their children. Feeding and caregiving are inextricably connected, and parental feeding is central to parent–child interactions [5].
Feeding practices refer to goal-oriented strategies that parents use during child feeding. These practices fall into three overarching constructs: ‘structure’, ‘autonomy support’, and ‘coercive control’ [6]. ‘Structure’ involves setting routines and role modeling. ‘Autonomy support’ includes reasoning and encouragement. Feeding strategies that fall under these constructs are known as responsive feeding practices, characterized by prompt, emotionally supportive, contingent, and developmentally appropriate reciprocity between the child and their caregiver [7,8]. Responsive feeding is associated with improved diet quality and eating behaviors [9]. ‘Coercive control’ describes parental dominance over children’s eating, such as pressuring to eat or using food as a reward [6]. These practices are non-responsive and override a child’s innate ability to self-regulate their appetite, leading to eating for reasons other than hunger [7,9].
Child feeding research has predominantly focused on mothers [10,11]. For example, in child obesity prevention and treatment trials, fathers constituted only 6% of cases when one parent was involved (n = 80) [12]. This underrepresentation of fathers potentially hinders the development of family-focused feeding interventions and misses the opportunity to engage men in nurturing care. Emerging studies suggest that fathers make a distinct contribution to the family food environment [13]. Fathers in Australia, the United States (US), and Denmark report high involvement in family food work, including feeding children [14,15,16]. Some studies suggest fathers adopt greater levels of coercive control and lower levels of structure and autonomy support practices than mothers [15,17]. The existing literature highlights the independent effects of paternal practices on children’s eating and weight outcomes [10,17]. This influence marks the importance of fathers, particularly when considering the evolving dynamics of family structures and shifting societal gender roles.
Responsive feeding depends on the caregiver providing structure and routine [8]. Disadvantage, characterized by financial hardship and social exclusion, can disrupt the household, leading to poorer family and child outcomes [18]. Food insecurity is a parameter of disadvantage that can introduce instability and dysfunction into a household. Food insecurity occurs when people have inadequate access to food of sufficient quantity and quality to meet dietary needs and preferences [19]. It affects approximately 8% of people in high-income countries and is more prevalent in disadvantaged areas [20,21]. Studies among mothers indicate that food insecurity leads to less responsive feeding and more coercive control practices [22,23]. Financial barriers may limit access to perishable and nutritious foods, impacting repeated food exposure crucial for developing food acceptance in children [24]. Food insecure households may also experience time constraints, greater stress, and family conflict [25], reducing the frequency of family meals [26]. Another factor contributing to instability is chaos in the home and work environments. Household chaos, characterized by a lack of organization or environmental confusion [27], has been associated with adverse family and child outcomes and appears to reduce parental responsiveness [28]. Work chaos, marked by work-related stress and inflexible schedules, can affect fathers in employment [29], potentially influencing paternal feeding practices.
Understanding paternal feeding involvement and practices within the context of disadvantage can provide valuable insights for child nutrition research and intervention design. This study aimed to achieve three objectives among Australian fathers: (1) describe paternal involvement in child eating, (2) assess the prevalence and severity of food insecurity while exploring its relationship with household and work chaos, and (3) identify paternal feeding practices and examine how these practices are associated with household food insecurity, household and work chaos, and other sociodemographic factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Procedure and Sample

This cross-sectional study recruited Australian fathers experiencing disadvantage. Participation was promoted through three methods: (1) paid social media advertisements targeting males interested in parenting, fatherhood, and food; (2) study information posted on relevant Facebook pages; (3) study flyers shared with organizations providing family and child services and food relief services. All recruitment materials were tailored to engage fathers. A sample size of 200 was considered acceptable after consultation with a statistician. This study was approved by the Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee (HREA 2022-5253-7746).
Participants self-screened using two criteria: (1) being a father or male caregiver of a child aged six months to five years and (2) affirmatively responding to the question ‘Do you sometimes struggle to pay the bills?’ Additional eligibility criteria included being at least 18 years of age, English proficiency, and the absence of health conditions that affected appetite, feeding, and growth in the index child. Participants with multiple children in the specified age range were asked to respond for the child with whom they had more feeding involvement. The questionnaire was hosted on Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap, https://projectredcap.org/resources/citations/ accessed on 4 January 2024) [30,31] and took approximately 20 min to complete. After survey completion, participants could enter a prize draw to win one of four AUD 100 gift cards. Figure 1 displays the participant flow diagram.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Sociodemographic Data

Participants reported their age, height, weight, employment status, education level, relationship status, postcode of primary residence, household income, source of income, housing type, cultural/ethnic background, country of birth, and household composition. The frequency of residential moves in the past 12 months was collected as a proxy of household stability. Information about the index child, including their age, gender, living arrangements, participant–child relationship, and childcare attendance, were collected. Fathers who did not reside with the child full-time reported the number of days they lived together in an average fortnight. Participants also reported their stress level and ability to manage stress using two items [26].

2.2.2. Involvement

Paternal involvement questions were adopted from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study [16]. Fathers reported their influence on major decisions about their child’s nutrition (range from ‘no influence’ to ‘a great deal of influence’) and the frequency with which they prepared meals for their child and assisted them with eating (feeding or eating with the child) in the past month (range from ‘not at all’ to ‘more than once a day’).

2.2.3. Early Child Feeding and Paternal Feeding Practices

Fathers were asked to report on breastfeeding practices and the introduction of complementary foods. Parental feeding practices were assessed using three validated questionnaires [32,33,34]. The Feeding Practices and Structure Questionnaire solid feeding version (FPSQ-S) was administered to children under the age of 2 years and the 28-item version (FPSQ-28) was administered to children over 2 years old. The FPSQ-S consists of six constructs reflecting non-responsiveness/coercive control (‘persuasive feeding’, ‘parent-led feeding’, ‘using food to calm’, and ‘using (non-) food rewards’) and structure (‘feeding on demand’ and ‘family meal environment’), where ‘family meal environment’ and ‘using (non-food) rewards’ were applicable only for children 12 months or older [32]. The FPSQ-28 consisted of seven constructs and a single item indicator for family meal setting [33]. Four constructs related to coercive control included: ‘persuasive feeding’, ‘reward for eating’, ‘reward for behaviour’, and ‘overt restriction’. Three constructs related to structure included ‘covert restriction’, ‘structure meal timing’, and ‘structure meal setting’. A domain from the Food Parenting Inventory (FPI) was administered to fathers with children over 2 years old to assess autonomy support practices and encompassed four constructs: ‘encouraging exploration of new foods’, ‘offer new foods’, ‘urging the child to eat new foods’, and ‘repeated presentation of new foods’ [34]. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale, with a ‘non applicable’ response available for FPSQ-S items.

2.2.4. Food Security Status

Household food security status was assessed using two measures. Firstly, a single-item question from the Australian National Health Survey (NHS) was included to enable comparison to nationally available data [35]. Secondly, the 18-item US Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) with adult and child-specific indicators was administered [36].

2.2.5. Household and Work Chaos

Household chaos was measured using the six-item version of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS) [37]. Participants described their home environment by responding to statements such as ‘It’s a real zoo in our home’ on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘definitely untrue’ to ‘definitely true’. Work chaos was assessed with a 4-item measure, including questions such as ‘My shift and work schedule cause extra stress for me and my child’ [29]. This was administered only to participants who were employed or in an apprenticeship. Response options ranged from ‘never’ to ‘always’.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data analyses were completed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 29 (IBM SPSS Statistics) [38]. A parental stress index was created by dividing the overall stress score by the management of the stress score. The index was dichotomized into ‘well-managed stress’ (<1) and ‘unmanaged stress’ (≥1) [26]. Equivalized household income was calculated by dividing the midpoint of the household income bracket by an equivalence factor [39]. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated based on self-reported weight and height. Mean scores were calculated for each feeding construct. Higher scores indicated more endorsement of the practices, except for ‘feeding on demand’, where a high score indicated adherence to a feeding routine. HFSSM items were coded according to the guide, with missing values replaced using the direct imputation method [36]. Affirmative responses were summed to generate a raw score, allowing the categorization of the severity of food insecurity at the household, adult, and child levels. Household food security status was also dichotomized to ‘food secure’ (high and marginal food security) or ‘food insecure’ (low and very low food security) for data analysis. CHAOS items were summed to provide a total score ranging from 6 to 30, with a higher score indicating a more chaotic home environment. Each work chaos item was coded and summed to generate a total score between zero and four, where a higher score indicated greater work chaos. For participants who reported being unemployed, on parental leave, student, or unable to work, a score of 0 was imputed to maximize the sample size. Household chaos and work chaos were treated as continuous variables.
Preliminary analyses assessed variable distribution, normality, and missing data. Cronbach’s alphas were calculated to verify the psychometric properties of the feeding instruments. Most feeding constructs showed acceptable Cronbach’s alphas (>0.6), ranging from 0.68 to 0.94. However, ‘feeding on demand’ (α = 0.55), ‘structured meal timing’ (α = 0.39), and ‘urge child to eat new food’ (α = 0.58) did not meet the acceptable threshold (<0.6) and were excluded from the regression analysis (See Supplementary Materials Table S3). Issues with response distribution and normality (visually on histogram, high kurtosis/skewness values > +/−3) were noted. The constructs ‘family meal environment’ and ‘using (non-) food reward’ were applicable to fathers of children 12 to 24 months (n = 56). Missing values for the remaining feeding constructs ranged from 9% to 16%, with the highest being ‘family meal setting’. Since missing values appeared to align with the order of the feeding constructs in the survey (suggesting they were missing, not at random), a complete case analysis was conducted.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe father and child sociodemographic characteristics, feeding involvement and practices, family meal setting, food security status, and CHAOS and work chaos scores. Independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA tests were used to compare the mean differences in CHAOS and work chaos scores for each food security status. For each feeding practice, Pearson or Spearman correlations were used to assess associations with three continuous sociodemographic variables: equivalized household income, paternal age, and child age. Six variables were dummy-coded and tested using an independent t-test or Mann–Whitney test: education level, number of residential moves, number of children, child gender, paternal BMI, and stress.
Bivariate analyses (Fisher’s exact test and one-way ANOVA) were conducted to examine the independent associations between family meal setting, food security status, household chaos, and work chaos scores within the older child group. Multiple linear regression was employed to explore the independent associations between key variables, feeding practices, and covariates for younger and older child groups. Six models were constructed to examine the individual and combined effects of food security, household and work chaos, and other covariates on feeding practices. Purposeful selection was used to produce the final model. All sociodemographic variables with p < 0.2 in the univariate analyses were initially included, and then non-significant variables (p > 0.05) were removed in subsequent steps, with attention to changes in coefficients exceeding 20%. Any eliminated variables with confounding effects were reintroduced, guided by existing knowledge. The assumptions for regression models were assessed, including independence of observations, linearity, homoscedasticity of residuals, multicollinearity, and residual normality. ‘Using (non-) food rewards’ was excluded due to serious heteroscedasticity and violations of residual normality. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Participants’ Characteristics

The online survey was accessed by 736 participants from March to September 2022, and 314 commenced the survey. The final analytic sample included 264 participants (younger child group (<2 years; n = 105) and older child group (2–5 years; n = 159)). Two participants had children slightly outside the study age range (5.3 and 5.4 months) but were included in the analysis as their children had started consuming solid foods. Sociodemographic characteristics of fathers and children are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Paternal Involvement in Child Eating

All children had commenced complementary feeding at the time the questionnaire was completed. Almost all fathers (98%) felt they had at least some influence in making decisions about their child’s nutrition, with the majority involved in preparing meals (67%) and assisting their child with eating (69%) at least once a day or more than once a day. Table 2 provides the descriptive analysis of paternal feeding involvement.

3.3. Food Security Status and Household and Work Chaos

3.3.1. Food Security Status

Among the 222 participants who completed the food security measures, 37% of households were classified as food insecure using the NHS single item. However, with HFSSM, 77% of households were classified as food insecure. The prevalence and severity of food insecurity in the total sample, among adults and children, are summarized in Table 3. Detailed responses to HFSSM individual items and food security status for both child age groups are provided (See Tables S1 and S2 in Supplementary Materials).

3.3.2. Associations with Household and Work Chaos

The mean raw score for HFSSM in the sample was 6.48 (SD = 4.23, n = 222). For household chaos and work chaos, the mean scores were 16.03 (SD = 4.45, n = 220) and 1.27 (SD = 1.30, n = 214), respectively. Table 4 compares CHAOS and work chaos scores by the severity of household food insecurity. Food insecure households had a significantly higher mean CHAOS score than food secure households (16.42 ± 4.42 versus 14.72 ± 4.35; p = 0.017). A graded effect was evident, whereby the CHAOS score increased with the severity of household food security. However, this trend was only significant in the older child group (p = 0.01). Food security status was not significantly associated with work chaos score (p = 0.76).

3.4. Paternal Feeding Practices and Their Associations with Food Security and Household and Work Chaos

3.4.1. Paternal Feeding Practices

Descriptive statistics for paternal feeding practices are provided in Table S3 in Supplementary Materials. Practices related to rewards and using food to calm had the lowest means overall (using (non-) food rewards: 1.9 (younger child group) and reward for eating: 2.5 (older child group)). For the younger child group, structure practices like feeding on demand and family meal environment displayed higher means (3.5 and 3.9, respectively) compared with coercive control practices (range: 1.9–2.8). Amongst the older child group, the highest mean scores for each coercive control, structure, and autonomy support construct were overt restriction (3.7), structured meal setting (3.7), and encourage exploration of new foods (3.9), respectively. In contrast, the lowest for each construct were reward for eating (2.5), covert restriction (2.8), and repeated presentation of new foods (3.4), respectively.

3.4.2. Family Meal Setting and Food Security and Household and Work Chaos

When examining family meal settings in the older child group (n = 134), most fathers indicated that their children always (32%) or often (40%) consumed the same meals as the rest of the family. There were no significant associations between family meal setting categories and food security (p = 0.755), mean CHAOS score (F4,128= 1.58, p = 0.183), or work chaos score (F4,128= 0.892, p = 0.471) (see Table S4 in Supplementary Materials).

3.4.3. Multivariable Regression Predicting Feeding Practices

The associations between feeding practices and household food insecurity and household and work chaos after adjusting for covariates are presented in Table 5. Other models examining individual and combining effects of the key variables are provided in Table S5 in Supplementary Materials.
In the younger child group, three coercive control (using food to calm, persuasive feeding, and parent-led feeding) and one structure (family meal environment) feeding practices were included in regression analyses. Using food to calm was only positively associated with household chaos after adjusting for food insecurity, work chaos, child gender, and income (p < 0.001). Persuasive feeding was positively associated with food insecurity (p = 0.016) and household chaos (p < 0.014). Parent-led feeding was positively associated with food insecurity (p = 0.030) and paternal education. The final model for family meal environment was not statistically significant, although there appeared to be a relationship with child gender; when compared with girls, the family meal environment score was 0.570 units lower in boys (p =0.043).
Among the older child group, four coercive control (reward for behavior, reward for eating, persuasive feeding, and overt restriction), two structure (covert restriction and structured meal setting), and three autonomy support (offering new foods, repeated presentation of new foods, and exploration of new foods) feeding practices were included in regression analyses.
In the final model, reward for behavior was associated with household chaos (p = 0.025) and fathers’ age (p = 0.006). Furthermore, reward for eating was positively associated with household chaos (p = 0.033), residential moving in the last year (p = 0.01), and child age (p = 0.002). Unlike the younger age group, persuasive feeding was not associated with food insecurity or household chaos, nor was it associated with work chaos; it was associated with residential moving in the last year (p = 0.005), fathers’ age (p = 0.043), and education (p = 0.016). Overt restriction was associated with household chaos (p = 0.005) and higher BMI (p = 0.010). The models for covert restriction and structured meal settings were not significant in this sample. Offering new foods was negatively associated with household chaos in the final model after adjusting for education (p = 0.039); however, it was not associated with food security and work chaos (both p > 0.05). Exploration of new foods were found to have no association with food security status, household chaos, or work chaos (all p > 0.05) after controlling for education and child’s age. However, household chaos was negatively associated with repeated presentation of new foods after adjusting for education and child’s age (p = 0.013).

4. Discussion

This study examined paternal involvement in child feeding and the prevalence of food insecurity among Australian fathers experiencing disadvantage. It assessed paternal feeding practices across two child age groups, shedding light on the relationship between household food security, household and work chaos, and feeding practices. The novel findings from this research highlight that food insecurity and household chaos were associated with paternal coercive control and autonomy support practices. This has implications for future research and practices promoting responsive feeding, an important aspect of adequate nutrition and responsive caregiving within the nurturing care framework [1].
Approximately 65–70% of fathers reported active involvement in daily family meal preparation and child feeding. This corresponds with recent research on Australian fathers with children under five, where approximately 75% assumed equal or greater responsibilities than their partners in meal planning, food shopping, and cooking [14]. Paternal involvement was higher than previously reported a decade ago, when just 42% of Australian fathers indicated high involvement in organizing meals [41]. This could be due to changing work flexibility, such as work-from-home arrangements and the growing employment trend of women, contributing to more shared responsibilities within the household. In a US study, 43.2% of fathers with 2-year-old children reported having a great deal of influence regarding their child’s nutrition [16], while the current study found an even higher proportion at 57%. The increased involvement may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, as the survey was distributed when Australia was emerging from pandemic-related restrictions, potentially affecting fathers’ time spent at home and childrearing responsibilities. However, Kuswara and colleagues noted that COVID-19 restrictions did not significantly impact fathers’ responsibility for food work [14]. While mothers continue to bear the primary responsibility for child feeding [13,15], the increasing and sustained paternal involvement, even in times of financial hardship, offers an opportunity for early feeding interventions involving fathers.
The prevalence of food insecurity among fathers living with disadvantage is not well-reported. Three-quarters of study participants were classified as food insecure through the HFSSM. Comparisons between populations were challenging due to the varied measurement tools [42] and the primary responder typically being the female head of household [25,42]. Food insecurity rates were not consistently separated for fathers when both parents were included [43,44]. When comparing with the NHS measure, 37% of the sample were food insecure—a sevenfold increase from the pre-COVID-19 national average of 5% [35] and 4.5 times greater than the prevalence among mother–father pairs with young children residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods (8%) [44]. This single-item measure has been shown to underestimate food insecurity compared with more comprehensive tools [45], as illustrated in this study (37% versus 77%). Using the HFSSM, an Australian study revealed an 85% prevalence of food insecurity among male participants experiencing entrenched disadvantage (i.e., meeting two or more of the following criteria: under- or unemployment, unstable housing, disability, mental disorders, inadequate social support, low education, or reliance on welfare payments) [46]. Sixty-two percent of all adults experienced very low food security [46] compared with almost half of the adults in the current study. This implies that three in five adults were reducing the size of meals or skipping meals, with over half having to go hungry. Food insecurity had a more profound impact on adults, with a higher percentage experiencing very low food security compared with children (49% versus 2%). These results suggest that adults prioritized their child’s food intake, aligning with a pattern reported in the literature among mothers [47]. Food insecurity can lead to adverse health and social implications for both adults and children, such as nutrient inadequacies [48,49] and poor health [50], as well as poorer developmental and behavioral outcomes in children [21]. Food-insecure households reported higher household chaos than those who were food secure, serving as an additional factor that can disrupt daily routines. The disproportionately high rate of food insecurity within this disadvantaged cohort presents significant implications for public health and social policy.
Consistent with studies on mothers and fathers [32,51,52], fathers in the current study generally endorsed structure and autonomy support feeding practices. For example, 70% of fathers often or always established family meals where children ate the same meals as the rest of the family. Offering new foods and encouraging exploration of new foods was highly endorsed among fathers with an older child (mean: 3.7–3.9). Fathers of young children also demonstrated ‘feeding on demand’ scores (mean: 3.5), representing more adherence to a feeding schedule. However, it remains unclear at which developmental age children would benefit more from structure, such as setting a meal routine instead of feeding on demand where the infant determines the timing of feeds. In relation to coercive control practices, fathers typically refrained from using rewards for eating or foods to calm. This is favorable, as practices like bribing a child to eat healthy foods have been shown to decrease the child’s liking for the target food. In contrast, practices like persuasive feeding (parental use of pressure) and overt restriction (limiting food access that children notice) became more prevalent among fathers with older children. Coercive control practices were adopted more commonly in fathers than in mothers in previous studies [53,54,55]. Considering the trend of these practices as children age and their potential impact on child eating and self-regulation capacity, this study underscores the significance of early feeding interventions targeting fathers with infants.
The findings provide some support that food insecurity may elevate the adoption of coercive control practices, especially among the young child group. It echoes some studies conducted with mothers that report higher use of restriction and pressure to eat behaviors [23,56,57], while contradicting others [43,58]. The anxiety around managing financial resources and accessing sufficient food may lead parents to restrict children’s food intake during shortages [59] or to pressure them to eat the available foods [22]. This is concerning, as these feeding practices may act as pathways through which food insecurity affects child nutrition and health [25]. Additionally, the lack of a relationship between food insecurity and practices related to structure and autonomy support in this study mirrors previous findings among low-income mothers [43]. A possible explanation for these results could be the role of parental coping mechanisms in increasing parents’ capacity to provide responsive feeding. For example, responsive feeding practices were adopted by parents (predominately mothers) with high food resource management skills regardless of food security status [60]. It can be speculated that fathers in this study may develop financial and food-based strategies to cope with limited resources. More research is needed to investigate the potential role of paternal resource management skills in mitigating the deleterious effects of food insecurity on feeding practices. McCurdy and colleagues suggest food insecurity may influence child feeding through other processes, such as parental or child stress [43]. In the study, parental stress and depressed mood reported earlier in the day predicted less homemade foods and more packaged meals in the evening within food insecure households but not food secure families. Though parental stress was considered in the current study, a two-item measure was unlikely to capture the fluctuating nature of stress associated with cycles of food insecurity. The HFSSM assessed parents’ food situation in the last 12 months, which may not reflect the immediate consequences of food insecurity, including day-to-day variations. As chronic food insecurity has been shown to aggravate non-responsive feeding practices [56], longitudinal research can help understand how transient or chronic food insecurity and parental skills influence feeding across child development.
The pandemic brought unprecedented change in families’ lives; parents spent more time at home, resulting in increased family meals together [56]. The absence of associations between food insecurity and structure practices such as family meals and autonomy support practices like repeated presentation of new foods suggests that these practices may have become more common amongst fathers. Indeed, COVID-19-specific stress, such as concerns around jobs and necessities, led to greater efforts to establish meal routines and increased engagement with children during mealtimes [61]. This is beneficial, since family meals and food exposures are linked to improved child nutritional intake [62]. However, families respond to the experience of food insecurity and other stressful environmental factors differently. It is increasingly recognized that marginal food security, characterized by anxiety over food shortage, can affect parenting [63], thus potentially altering feeding practices. However, this category was classified as food secure according to the HFSSM guide. The relationship between food insecurity severity and paternal feeding should be investigated further with a larger sample.
The observation that household chaos predicted several coercive control and autonomy support feeding practices while work chaos did not, underscores the significance of disorganization within the home environment. Research on the impact of chaos on feeding practices is scant. A previous study found that chaos was associated with mothers using food to soothe, possibly to alleviate their own and children’s emotional distress [64]. Household chaos has also been reported to decrease family meal frequency and increase barriers to meal preparation (e.g., lack of time or energy to plan and cook meals) [26]. Surprisingly, this phenomenon was not observed with structure practices in the current study. This might be attributed to the high proportion of fathers reporting frequent family meals or differences in how they interpret feeding items compared with mothers, especially when their roles appeared to be assisting mothers in family meals [65]. Household chaos has been linked to children’s unhealthy food-related behaviors, health, and weight outcomes [66,67]. The factors that contribute to household chaos and the mechanisms through which it interferes with parental responsive practices should be investigated further.
This study sheds light on paternal involvement and practices among Australian fathers living with disadvantage. The effective use of a subjective screening criterion for financial hardship, developed after consultation with families and organizations, proved effective compared with other traditional measures like income for identifying families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The inclusion of the HFSSM, a comprehensive and validated measure of food insecurity, and measures of household and work chaos represent a strength in paternal feeding studies, which is seldom investigated. These contextual factors can guide future interventions, offering insights for tailored feeding advice to families experiencing disadvantage.
This study has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. The high proportion of food insecurity among fathers challenged investigations of linear relationships, potentially contributing to null findings in some practices. A larger sample size is essential for robust conclusions. Data collection occurred during the later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (March to September 2022), and aspects such as pandemic-related changes in work/childcare arrangements and food access were not explored. Utilizing the short form version of CHAOS reduced participant burden, but its limited validation posed constraints. Work chaos, a relatively understudied aspect of families’ social context, was imputed for fathers who were unemployed to retain sample power. Further research could explore other sources of chaos (e.g., family conflict) and their impact on paternal feeding by employing various methods, including observations. Normality violation was observed for the ‘use of (non-) food rewards’ construct in the younger child group, represented by the low reported use of this practice. Low internal consistency for three feeding constructs, consistent with original scale development studies [32,33], posed another limitation. Existing measurement tools are seldom validated explicitly for fathers or disadvantaged samples [17]. Validation efforts, which might include cognitive interviews and comparisons with direct observations, are crucial. Selection bias and social desirability bias in self-reported questionnaires may exist, leading fathers involved and interested in feeding to participate or report more favorable practices. Despite attempts to recruit diverse male caregivers, non-biological or non-residential fathers are underrepresented, necessitating specific attention in future feeding studies. Lastly, the cross-sectional study design was unable to determine the directionality of relationships.

5. Conclusions

Fathers in this study demonstrated notable involvement in child feeding but faced challenges related to food insecurity and household chaos, impacting paternal feeding practices across development stages. These findings provide insight for designing interventions that support fathers with responsive feeding. Researchers and practitioners should integrate strategies considering fathers’ experiences of socioeconomic disadvantage to mitigate their impact on child feeding. From a policy perspective, ensuring stable financial and social access to nutritious foods and addressing household chaos is crucial for promoting family well-being. This contributes to building fathers’ capacities to provide nurturing care for optimal child nutrition and development.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu16020205/s1, Table S1: Item statistic for 18-item HFSSM reported in a sample of 222 participants; Table S2: Food security status assessed by HFSSM in binary and categorical form, and NHS single item in a sample of 222 participants, and separately for young and older child groups; Table S3: Means, standard deviation, and internal reliability of feeding practices for the separate younger and older child groups; Table S4: Count and proportion for family meal setting, and bivariate analyses with food security status, household chaos, and work chaos in older child group; Table S5: Regression models examining individual effects and combining effects of food security, household chaos, and work chaos on paternal feeding practices for younger and older child groups.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.T.H.S., S.N., R.B., D.G. and K.A.B.; methodology, J.T.H.S., S.N., R.B., D.G. and K.A.B.; formal analysis, J.T.H.S.; investigation, J.T.H.S.; data curation, J.T.H.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.T.H.S.; writing—review and editing, J.T.H.S., S.N., R.B., D.G. and K.A.B.; visualization, J.T.H.S.; supervision, J.T.H.S., S.N., R.B., D.G. and K.A.B.; project administration, J.T.H.S.; funding acquisition, J.T.H.S., R.B. and D.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

J.T.H.S. received a PhD scholarship from QUT (QUTPRA) with a top-up scholarship from the Queensland Children’s Hospital Foundation (QCHF). K.A.B. and D.G. were supported by a philanthropic grant from QCHF via Woolworths. Neither Woolworths nor QCHF were involved in the research design or the establishment of the center governance. R.B. was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE230101053). The authors had no financial relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the present work.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee (HREA 2022-5253-7746; 15 March 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects through clicking ‘consent’ after reading the participant information sheet and before commencing the survey.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank participants for taking the time to complete the survey. The authors would also like to acknowledge family and child service providers and community Facebook group administrators who facilitated recruitment by sharing advertisements with families within their organizations. We appreciate the contributions of Zoe Dettrick for her expertise and guidance in the statistical analysis of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. World Health Organisation; The United Nations Children’s Fund. Nurturing Care and Men’s Engagement: Thematic Brief; World Health Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Dietary Behaviour. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/dietary-behaviour/2022 (accessed on 2 January 2024).
  3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Children. Available online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children (accessed on 2 January 2024).
  4. Australian Early Development Census. Australian Early Development Census National Report 2021, Early Childhood Development in Australia; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2021.
  5. Daniels, L.A. Feeding Practices and Parenting: A Pathway to Child Health and Family Happiness. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2019, 74, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Disantis, K.I.; Hodges, E.A.; Johnson, S.L.; Fisher, J.O. The role of responsive feeding in overweight during infancy and toddlerhood: A systematic review. Int. J. Obes. 2011, 35, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Black, M.M.; Aboud, F.E. Responsive feeding is embedded in a theoretical framework of responsive parenting. J. Nutr. 2011, 141, 490–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Balantekin, K.N.; Anzman-Frasca, S.; Francis, L.A.; Ventura, A.K.; Fisher, J.O.; Johnson, S.L. Positive parenting approaches and their association with child eating and weight: A narrative review from infancy to adolescence. Pediatr. Obes. 2020, 15, e12722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Davison, K.K.; Haines, J.; Garcia, E.A.; Douglas, S.; McBride, B. Fathers’ food parenting: A scoping review of the literature from 1990 to 2019. Pediatr. Obes. 2020, 15, e12654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baxter, K.A.; Nambiar, S.; So, T.H.; Gallegos, D.; Byrne, R. Parental Feeding Practices in Families Experiencing Food Insecurity: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Morgan, P.J.; Young, M.D.; Lloyd, A.B.; Wang, M.L.; Eather, N.; Miller, A.; Murtagh, E.M.; Barnes, A.T.; Pagoto, S.L. Involvement of Fathers in Pediatric Obesity Treatment and Prevention Trials: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics 2017, 139, e20162635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rahill, S.; Kennedy, A.; Kearney, J. A review of the influence of fathers on children’s eating behaviours and dietary intake. Appetite 2020, 147, 104540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kuswara, K.; Vidgen, H.; Love, P.; Laws, R.; Campbell, K. The contribution of Australian fathers in getting food on the table among families with young children. Public Health Nutr. 2023, 26, 2826–2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Philippe, K.; Chabanet, C.; Issanchou, S.; Grønhøj, A.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Monnery-Patris, S. Parental feeding practices and parental involvement in child feeding in Denmark: Gender differences and predictors. Appetite 2022, 170, 105876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guerrero, A.D.; Chu, L.; Franke, T.; Kuo, A.A. Father Involvement in Feeding Interactions with Their Young Children. Am. J. Health Behav. 2016, 40, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Khandpur, N.; Blaine, R.E.; Fisher, J.O.; Davison, K.K. Fathers’ child feeding practices: A review of the evidence. Appetite 2014, 78, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. McLachlan, R.; Gilfillan, G.; Gordon, J. Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia; Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper: Canberra, Australia, 2013. Available online: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/deep-persistent-disadvantag (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  19. Olson, C.M.; Holben, D.H. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Domestic Food and Nutrition Security. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2002, 102, 1840–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. FAO; IFAD; UNICED; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. Urbanization, Agrifood Systems Transformation and Healthy Diets across the Rural–Urban Continuum; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ramsey, R.; Giskes, K.; Turrell, G.; Gallegos, D. Food insecurity among Australian children: Potential determinants, health and developmental consequences. J. Child Health Care 2011, 15, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bauer, K.W.; MacLehose, R.; Loth, K.A.; Fisher, J.O.; Larson, N.I.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Eating- and Weight-Related Parenting of Adolescents in the Context of Food Insecurity. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2015, 115, 1408–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Armstrong, B.; Hepworth, A.D.; Black, M.M. Hunger in the household: Food insecurity and associations with maternal eating and toddler feeding. Pediatr. Obes. 2020, 15, e12637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sullivan, S.A.; Birch, L.L. Pass the Sugar, Pass the Salt: Experience Dictates Preference. Dev. Psychol. 1990, 26, 546–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Arlinghaus, K.R.; Laska, M.N. Parent Feeding Practices in the Context of Food Insecurity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fulkerson, J.A.; Telke, S.; Larson, N.; Berge, J.; Sherwood, N.E.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. A healthful home food environment: Is it possible amidst household chaos and parental stress? Appetite 2019, 142, 104391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Evans, G.W.; Wachs, T.D. Chaos and Its Influence on Children’s Development: An Ecological Perspective; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marsh, S.; Dobson, R.; Maddison, R. The relationship between household chaos and child, parent, and family outcomes: A systematic scoping review. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kamp Dush, C.M.; Schmeer, K.K.; Taylor, M. Chaos as a social determinant of child health: Reciprocal associations? Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 95, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Thielke, R.; Payne, J.; Gonzalez, N.; Conde, J.G. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J. Biomed. Inform. 2009, 42, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Minor, B.L.; Elliott, V.; Fernandez, M.; O’Neal, L.; McLeod, L.; Delacqua, G.; Delacqua, F.; Kirby, J.; et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019, 95, 103208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Jansen, E.; Russell, C.G.; Appleton, J.; Byrne, R.; Daniels, L.A.; Fowler, C.; Rossiter, C.; Mallan, K.M. The Feeding Practices and Structure Questionnaire: Development and validation of age appropriate versions for infants and toddlers. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2021, 18, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jansen, E.; Harris, H.A.; Mallan, K.M.; Daniels, L.; Thorpe, K. Measurement invariance of the Feeding Practices and Structure Questionnaire-28 among a community of socioeconomically disadvantaged mothers and fathers. Appetite 2018, 120, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Power, T.G.; Johnson, S.L.; Beck, A.D.; Martinez, A.D.; Hughes, S.O. The Food Parenting Inventory: Factor structure, reliability, and validity in a low-income, Latina sample. Appetite 2019, 134, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Health Survey: Nutrition–State and Territory Results 2011–2012; Catalogue Number 4364.0.55.009. Available online: www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/4364.0.55.0092011-12?OpenDocument (accessed on 5 July 2023).
  36. Bickel, G.; Nord, M.; Price, C.; Hamilton, W.; Cook, J. Measuring Food Security in the United States, Guide to Measuring Household Food Security; United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  37. Matheny, A.P.; Wachs, T.D.; Ludwig, J.L.; Phillips, K. Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric characteristics of the confusion, hubbub, and order scale. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 1995, 16, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. SPSS Inc. IBM Company Armonk SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 27.0); SPSS Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  39. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Equivalised Total Household Income. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/statementsdwellinghied?opendocument&navpos=430 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  40. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016; ABS, Ed.; ABS: Canberra, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mallan, K.M.; Nothard, M.; Thorpe, K.; Nicholson, J.M.; Wilson, A.; Scuffham, P.A.; Daniels, L.A. The role of fathers in child feeding: Perceived responsibility and predictors of participation: The role of fathers in child feeding. Child Care Health Dev. 2013, 40, 715–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kerz, A.; Bell, K.; White, M.; Thompson, A.; Suter, M.; McKechnie, R.; Gallegos, D. Development and preliminary validation of a brief household food insecurity screening tool for paediatric health services in Australia. Health Soc. Care Community 2020, 29, 1538–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. McCurdy, K.; Gans, K.M.; Risica, P.M.; Fox, K.; Tovar, A. Food insecurity, food parenting practices, and child eating behaviors among low-income Hispanic families of young children. Appetite 2022, 169, 5857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Harris, H.A.; Jansen, E.; Mallan, K.M.; Daniels, L.; Thorpe, K. Do dads make a difference? Family feeding dynamics and child fussy eating. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2018, 39, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. McKechnie, R.; Turrell, G.; Giskes, K.; Gallegos, D. Single-item measure of food insecurity used in the National Health Survey may underestimate prevalence in Australia. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2018, 42, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Seivwright, A.N.; Callis, Z.; Flatau, P. Food Insecurity and Socioeconomic Disadvantage in Australia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. McIntyre, L.; Glanville, N.T.; Raine, K.D.; Dayle, J.B.; Anderson, B.; Battaglia, N. Do low-income lone mothers compromise their nutrition to feed their children? Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2003, 168, 686–691. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kirkpatrick, S.I.; Tarasuk, V. Food Insecurity Is Associated with Nutrient Inadequacies among Canadian Adults and Adolescents. J. Nutr. 2008, 138, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Matheson, D.M.; Varady, J.; Varady, A.; Killen, J.D. Household food security and nutritional status of Hispanic children in the fifth grade. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2002, 76, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vozoris, N.T.; Tarasuk, V.S. Household Food Insufficiency Is Associated with Poorer Health. J. Nutr. 2003, 133, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Finnane, J.M.; Jansen, E.; Mallan, K.M.; Daniels, L.A. Mealtime Structure and Responsive Feeding Practices Are Associated with Less Food Fussiness and More Food Enjoyment in Children. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2017, 49, 11–18.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pratt, M.; Hoffmann, D.; Taylor, M.; Musher-Eizenman, D. Structure, coercive control, and autonomy promotion: A comparison of fathers’ and mothers’ food parenting strategies. J. Health Psychol. 2019, 24, 1863–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Daniels, L.A.; Mallan, K.M.; Jansen, E.; Nicholson, J.M.; Magarey, A.M.; Thorpe, K. Comparison of early feeding practices in mother–father dyads and possible generalisation of an efficacious maternal intervention to fathers’ feeding practices: A secondary analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tschann, J.M.; Gregorich, S.E.; Penilla, C.; Pasch, L.A.; de Groat, C.L.; Flores, E.; Deardorff, J.; Greenspan, L.C.; Butte, N.F. Parental feeding practices in Mexican American families: Initial test of an expanded measure. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Philippe, K.; Chabanet, C.; Issanchou, S.; Monnery-Patris, S. Are food parenting practices gendered? Impact of mothers’ and fathers’ practices on their child’s eating behaviors. Appetite 2021, 166, 105433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Adams, E.L.; Caccavale, L.J.; Smith, D.; Bean, M.K. Food Insecurity, the Home Food Environment, and Parent Feeding Practices in the Era of COVID-19. Obesity (19307381) 2020, 28, 2056–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Berg, J.; Tiso, S.; Grasska, M.; Tan, E.; Chowdhury, Y.; Zender, R.; Knudtson, M. Obesity, Parent Perceptions, Child Feeding, and Food Security in First Generation Hispanic Families. Californian J. Health Promot. 2013, 11, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Feinberg, E.; Kavanagh, P.L.; Young, R.L.; Prudent, N. Food Insecurity and Compensatory Feeding Practices among Urban Black Families. Pediatrics 2008, 122, e854–e860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gross, R.S.; Mendelsohn, A.L.; Arana, M.M.; Messito, M.J. Food Insecurity during Pregnancy and Breastfeeding by Low-Income Hispanic Mothers. Pediatrics 2019, 143, e20184113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Na, M.; Jomaa, L.; Eagleton, S.G.; Savage, J.S. Head Start Parents with or without Food Insecurity and with Lower Food Resource Management Skills Use Less Positive Feeding Practices in Preschool-Age Children. J. Nutr. 2021, 151, 1294–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jansen, E.; Thapaliya, G.; Aghababian, A.; Sadler, J.; Smith, K.; Carnell, S. Parental stress, food parenting practices and child snack intake during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appetite 2021, 161, 105119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cooke, L. The importance of exposure for healthy eating in childhood: A review. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2007, 20, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Encinger, A.; Shizu Kutaka, T.; Chernyavskiy, P.; Acar, I.H.; Raikes, H.H. Relations among Low-Income Preschool Children’s Self-Regulation, Marginal Food Security, and Parent Stress. Early Educ. Dev. 2020, 31, 1264–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ruggiero, C.; Harris, H.; Bailey-Davis, L.; Savage, J. Household Chaos and Parenting Competence Are Associated with Low-Income Mothers’ Use of Food to Soothe: A Longitudinal Analysis in Early Infancy. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2020, 4, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Daminger, A. The Cognitive Dimension of Household Labor. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2019, 84, 609–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Martin-Biggers, J.; Quick, V.; Zhang, M.; Jin, Y.; Byrd-Bredbenner, C. Relationships of family conflict, cohesion, and chaos in the home environment on maternal and child food-related behaviours. Matern. Child Nutr. 2018, 14, e12540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khatiwada, A.; Shoaibi, A.; Neelon, B.; Emond, J.A.; Benjamin-Neelon, S.E. Household chaos during infancy and infant weight status at 12 months. Pediatr. Obes. 2018, 13, 607–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nutrients 16 00205 g001
Figure 1. Participant flow diagram including the final sample size and reasons for exclusion. FPSQ-S—Feeding Practices and Structure Questionnaire (solid version); FPSQ-28—Feeding Practices and Structure Questionnaire-28; FPI—Food Parenting Inventory; FM—family meal environment; REW—using (non-food) rewards. 1 Criterion was ‘Are you a father or male caregiver with a child aged 6 months to 5 years?’ 2 Criterion was ‘Do you sometimes struggle to pay the bills?’ 3 Younger child group: <2 years; older child group: 2–5 years.
Figure 1. Participant flow diagram including the final sample size and reasons for exclusion. FPSQ-S—Feeding Practices and Structure Questionnaire (solid version); FPSQ-28—Feeding Practices and Structure Questionnaire-28; FPI—Food Parenting Inventory; FM—family meal environment; REW—using (non-food) rewards. 1 Criterion was ‘Are you a father or male caregiver with a child aged 6 months to 5 years?’ 2 Criterion was ‘Do you sometimes struggle to pay the bills?’ 3 Younger child group: <2 years; older child group: 2–5 years.
Nutrients 16 00205 g001
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of fathers and children.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of fathers and children.
DemographicsTotal Sample
(n = 264)		Younger Child Group
(<2 Years) (n = 105)		Older
Child Group
(2–5 Years) (n = 159)		Missing
Total,
n (%)
Father
Age in years,
Median (IQR)		34.0 (30–37)32.0 (29–35)35.0 (30–38)2 (0.8)
BMI 1 category, n (%)3 (1)
 <2572 (27)30 (29)42 (26)
 ≥25189 (72)73 (70)116(73)
Highest level of education, n (%)0
 Non-university education166 (63)63 (60)103 (65)
 University education96 (36)41 (39)55 (35)
 Prefer not to say2 (1)1 (1)1 (1)
Marital status, n (%)0
 Married/De facto221 (84)99 (94)122 (77)
 Divorced/Separated25 (10)1 (1)24 (15)
 Other15 (6)5 (5)10 (6)
 Prefer not to say3 (1)03 (2)
Employment or education, n (%)1 (1)
 Working full-time
(≥35 h/week)		175 (66)71 (68)104 (65)
 Working part-time
(<35 h/week)		41 (16)13 (12)28 (18)
 Others (self-employed/casual)5 (2)4 (4)10 (0.6)
 Unpaid work/parental duties7 (3)5 (5)2 (1)
 Unemployed/unable to work24 (9)10 (10)14 (9)
 Apprenticeship/student11 (4)1 (1)10 (6)
Ethnicity, n (%)0
 Australian214 (81)84 (80)130 (82)
 Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander9 (3)6 (6)3 (2)
 New Zealander22 (8)10 (10)12 (8)
Born in Australia, n (%)211 (80)87 (83)124 (78)0
Equivalized household income 2 (AUD), n (%)5 (2)
 AUD 0–AUD 24,40064 (24)21 (20)43 (27)
 AUD 24,401–AUD 37,10031 (12)11 (11)20 (13)
 AUD 37,101–AUD 60,000109 (41)50 (48)59 (37)
 AUD 60,001+55 (21)21 (20)34 (21)
Source of income, n (%)0
 Salary or wages235 (89)93 (89)142 (89)
 Government support/pension26 (10)9 (9)17 (11)
 Other3 (1)3 (2)0
Have a healthcare card, n (%)79 (30)28 (27)51 (32)1 (0.4)
State or Territory, n (%)
 Queensland135 (51)49 (47)86 (54)3 (1)
 New South Wales43 (16)18 (17)25 (16)
 Victoria39 (15)18 (17)21 (13)
 Other (SA, WA, TAS, NT)35 (13)13 (12)22 (14)
 Prefer not to say9 (3)5 (5)4 (30)
SEIFA ISRD decile category 3, n (%)14 (5)
 Low (1–3)58 (22)23 (22)35 (22)
 Medium (4–6)78 (30)31 (30)47 (30)
 High (7–10)114 (43)43 (41)71 (45)
Housing types, n (%)5 (2)
 House/townhouse226(86)90 (86)136 (86)
 Apartment/flat26 (10)11 (11)15 (9)
 Other4 (2)3 (3)1 (1)
Frequency of moving residence in past 12 months1 (1)
 None176 (67)62 (59)114 (72)
 One or more87 (33)42 (40)45 (28)
Parental stress, n (%)44 (17)
 Unmanaged stress146 (55)60 (57)86 (54)
 Well-managed stress74 (28)27 (26)47 (30)
Number of adults0
 One43 (16)12 (11)31 (20)
 Two203 (77)90 (86)113 (71)
 Three or more 18 (7)3 (3)15 (9)
Number of children (0–14 years)0
 One104 (39)68 (65)36 (23)
 Two106 (40)24 (23)82 (52)
 Three or more54 (21)13 (12)41 (26)
Number of children (15–17 years)0
 None260 (98.5)104 (99)156 (98)
 One or more4 (1.5)1 (1)3 (2)
Index child
Age (months),
median (IQR)		28.5
(15.3–47.6)		13.2
(9.2–18.3)		42.1
(33.5–53.6)		1 (1)
Child gender, n (%)2 (0.8)
 Boy154 (58)65 (62)89 (56)
 Girl104 (39)36 (34)68 (43)
Relationship to child, n (%)0
 Biological father262 (99)104 (99)158 (99)
 Stepfather1 (0.5)01 (1)
Great grandfather1 (0.5)1 (1)0
Days living with child per fortnight1 (1)
 14 (full-time)231 (88)103 (98)128 (81)
 7–13 (>50% of time)11 (4)011 (7)
 2–6 (<50% of time)21 (8)2 (2)19 (12)
Attending childcare, n (%)163 (62)52 (50)111 (70)1 (1)
IQR—interquartile range; BMI—body mass index; SEIFA—socioeconomic indexes for areas; ISRD—index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage. 1 Calculated from participant reported weight and height. 2 The mid-report of the household income bracket was divided by an equivalence factor (1 point to the first adult, 0.5 point to each additional person over 15 years old, 0.3 to each child under the age of 15). Equivalized household incomes were categorized into quartiles [39]. 3 Derived from participants’ postcode, with SEIFA 1 indicating the most disadvantaged [40].
Table 2. Breastfeeding and paternal involvement in the total sample and for younger and older child groups.
Table 2. Breastfeeding and paternal involvement in the total sample and for younger and older child groups.
Total
(n = 264)		Younger Child Group
(<2 Years)
(n = 105)		Older Child Group
(2–5 Years)
(n = 159)
Breastfeeding, n (%)
 Breastfeeding/ever breastfed230 (87)92 (88)138 (87)
 Never been breastfed32 (12)12 (11)20 (13)
 Missing2 (1)1 (1)1 (1)
Influence on child’s nutrition, n (%)
 No influence3 (1)3 (3)0
 Some influence109 (41)45 (43)64 (40)
 A great deal of influence150 (57)55 (52)94 (59)
 Missing2 (1)1 (1)1 (1)
Preparing meals, n (%)
 Not at all4 (2)4 (4)0
 Rarely5 (2)4 (4)1 (1)
 A few times a month11 (4)4 (4)7 (4)
 A few times a week67 (25)26 (25)41 (26)
 At least once a day84 (32)26 (25)51 (32)
 More than once a day91 (35)33 (31)58 (37)
 Missing2 (1)1 (1)1 (1)
Assisting child with eating, n (%)
 Not at all 5 (2)1 (1)4 (3)
 Rarely10 (4)010 (6)
 A few times a month10 (4)3 (3)7 (4)
 A few times a week53 (20)14 (13)39 (25)
 At least once a day104 (39)41 (39)63 (40)
 More than once a day79 (30)44 (42)35 (22)
 Missing3 (1)2 (2)1 (1)
Table 3. Food security status as assessed by 18-item HFSSM and NHS single item.
Table 3. Food security status as assessed by 18-item HFSSM and NHS single item.
Prevalence of Household Food Insecurity, n (%), (n = 222) 1
Food secureFood insecure
NHS–1 item 2141 (63)81 (37)
HFSSM (dichotomized) 352 (23)170 (77)
HFSSM (categories)High food securityMarginal food securityLow food securityVery low food security
 Household level 422 (10)30 (14)72 (32)98 (44)
 Among adults 527 (12)37 (17)49 (22)109 (49)
High and marginal food securityLow food securityVery low food security
 Among children 6115 (52)103 (46)4 (2)
NHS—National Health Survey; HFSSM—household food security survey module. 1 Missing data for the food security measure (n = 42; 16%). 2 The single item asked: ‘In the last 12 months, was there any time you have run out of food and not been able to purchase more?’ Affirmative responses (yes) were categorized as food insecure. 3 Classified based on HFSSM guide; households with high or marginal food security were classified as food secure; low or very low food security was classified as food insecure. 4 Specification of food security was based on HFSSM (18 items) raw score: high food security (0), marginal food security (1–2), low food security (3–7), or very low food security (8–18) [36]. 5 HFSSM adult scale (10 items) was used to classify food security among adults. 6 HFSSM children scale (8 items) was used to classify food security among children.
Table 4. Household and work chaos scores by food security status.
Table 4. Household and work chaos scores by food security status.
Severity of Food InsecurityTest
Statistics
(p-Value) 2
High Food SecurityMarginal
Food Security		Low Food SecurityVery Low Food Security
CHAOS
score 1,
M ± SD		Total (n = 220)14.38 ± 3.9314.97 ± 4.6815.69 ± 4.1516.95 ± 4.563.13 (0.03 *)
Younger child group 3 (n = 87)15.00 ± 3.7815.18 ± 4.0915.60 ± 4.8515.84 ± 4.390.12 (0.95)
Older child group 3 (n = 133)13.92 ± 0.6914.83 ± 5.1115.76 ± 3.6217.62 ± 4.574.01 (0.01 *)
Work chaos
score 1,
M ± SD		Total (n = 214)1.10 ± 1.041.21 ± 1.321.21 ± 1.241.37 ± 1.390.39 (0.76)
Younger child group 3 (n = 85)1.11 ± 1.171.55 ± 1.211.28 ± 1.361.25 ± 1.380.20 (0.90)
Older child group 3 (n = 133)1.08 ± 0.101.00 ± 1.371.14 ± 1.161.38 ± 1.400.57 (0.64)
M ± SD—mean ± standard deviation; CHAOS—Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale. 1 Missing data for household chaos (n = 44, 17%) and work chaos (n = 50, 19%). 2 One-way ANOVA was used to test for statistical difference. 3 Younger child group (child aged < 2 years); older child group (child aged 2 to 5 years). * p < 0.05.
Table 5. Multiple linear regression models examining associations between paternal feeding practices, household food security, household chaos, and work chaos (final models).
Table 5. Multiple linear regression models examining associations between paternal feeding practices, household food security, household chaos, and work chaos (final models).
Final Regression Model
Feeding Practices Independent VariablesB95%CIp-ValueAdjusted R2ANOVA
Younger child group (<2 years) 1
Coercive controlUsing food to calm
(n = 81)		Food insecure 20.122−0.275, 0.5190.5420.1560.003 **
Household chaos0.0680.03, 0.105<0.001 ***
Work chaos−0.018−0.145, 0.1090.780
Child’s sex (boy) 30.308−0.04, 0.6560.082
Equivalized household income0.0000.000, 0.0000.186
Persuasive feeding
(n = 83)		Food insecure 20.5520.106, 0.9980.016 *0.1420.005 **
Household chaos0.0560.011, 0.1000.014 *
Work chaos−0.008−0.155, 0.1390.917
Child’s age (months)0.026−0.008, 0.0610.134
Father’s age0.022−0.008, 0.0530.148
Parent-led feeding
(n = 85)		Food insecure 20.4720.048, 0.8970.030 *0.0660.063
Household chaos0.033−0.009, 0.0740.119
Work chaos0.022−0.012, 0.1640.761
Education 40.4710.096, 0.8450.014 *
Unmanaged stress 5−0.228−0.641, −0.1860.277
StructureFamily meal environment (n = 48)Food insecure 2−0.064−0.628, 0.4990.8190.0770.138
Household chaos−0.044−0.1, 0.0120.118
Work chaos−0.082−0.267, 0.1020.373
Child’s sex (boy) 3−0.570−1.12, −0.190.043 *
Equivalized household income−0.0000.000, 0.0000.100
Older child group (2–5 years) 1
Coercive ControlReward for behavior (n = 132)Food insecure 20.102−0.217, 0.4210.5270.141<0.001 ***
Household chaos0.0350.004, 0.0660.025*
Work chaos0.075−0.028, 0.1780.152
Unmanaged stress 50.195−0.088, 0.4780.175
Father’s age−0.034−0.059, −0.010.006 **
Child’s age (months)0.009−0.001, 0.020.065
Reward for eating
(n = 132)		Food insecure 2−0.069−0.437, 0.2980.7100.15<0.001 ***
Household chaos0.0380.003, 0.0730.033 *
Work chaos−0.001−0.012, 0.1180.988
Residential move (≥1) 60.4430.108, 0.7780.010 *
Child’s age (months)0.0190.007, 0.0310.002 **
Father’s age−0.023−0.051, 0.0050.107
Persuasive feeding
(n = 131)		Food insecure 20.227−0.014, 0.4690.0650.14<0.001 ***
Household chaos0.015−0.008, 0.0370.198
Work chaos0.012−0.066, 0.0890.762
Residential move (≥1) 60.3090.094, 0.5240.005 **
Father’s age−0.019−0.001, −0.1940.043 *
Education 40.2570.049, 0.4640.016 *
Overt restriction
(n = 133)		Food insecure 2−0.175−0.524, 0.1750.3240.09<0.004 **
Household chaos0.0480.014, 0.0810.005 **
Work chaos0.035−0.078, −0.1470.541
BMI ≥ 25 7−0.428−0.752, −0.1050.01 *
Residential move (≥1) 60.274−0.044, 0.5920.091
StructureCovert restriction
(n = 133)		Food insecure 20.095−0.279, 0.4700.615−0.0110.666
Household chaos−0.021−0.056, 0.0140.242
Work chaos0.001−0.133, 0.1080.837
Structured meal setting
(n = 133)		Food insecure 2−0.123−0.486, 0.2390.502−0.0050.500
Household chaos−0.021−0.055, 0.0140.236
Work chaos0.001−0.116, 0.1170.987
Autonomy Support
Offer new foods
(n = 132)		Food insecure 2−0.096−0.359, 0.1670.4710.0620.016 *
Household chaos−0.026−0.051, −0.0010.039 *
Work chaos−0.036−0.12, 0.0480.401
Education 4−0.287−0.515, −0.0580.014 *
Exploration of new foods
(n = 132)		Food insecure 2−0.146 −0.511, 0.2190.4300.0530.035 *
Household chaos−0.013 −0.048, 0.0210.442
Work chaos−0.028 −0.145, 0.0880.632
Education 4−0.418 −0.739, −0.0980.011 *
Child’s age−0.014 −0.025, −0.0020.021 *
Repeated presentation of new foods
(n = 132)		Food insecure 2−0.116−0.429, 0.1980.4660.0860.006 **
Household chaos−0.038−0.067, −0.0080.013 *
Work chaos0.024−0.076, 0.1240.636
Education 4−0.287−0.562, −0.0120.041 *
Child’s age−0.012−0.022, −0.0020.017 *
B—unstandardized coefficients; CI—confidence interval; R2—coefficient of determination; BMI—body mass index. 1 Younger child group completed FPSQ-S; older child group completed FPSQ-28 and FPI. Coding for categorical variables (where 0 is the reference group): 2 Food insecure = 1, food secure = 0. 3 Child’s sex: boy = 1, girl = 0. 4 Education: university degree or higher = 1, non-degree education = 0. 5 Unmanaged stress = 1, well-managed stress = 0. 6 Moved residence more than once in past 12 months = 1, not moved = 0. 7 BMI ≥ 25 = 1, BMI < 25 = 0. * = p < 0.05, ** = p <0.01, *** = p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

So, J.T.H.; Nambiar, S.; Byrne, R.; Gallegos, D.; Baxter, K.A. Dads at Mealtimes: Associations between Food Security, Household and Work Chaos, and Paternal Feeding Practices among Australian Fathers Living with Disadvantage. Nutrients 2024, 16, 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16020205

AMA Style

So JTH, Nambiar S, Byrne R, Gallegos D, Baxter KA. Dads at Mealtimes: Associations between Food Security, Household and Work Chaos, and Paternal Feeding Practices among Australian Fathers Living with Disadvantage. Nutrients. 2024; 16(2):205. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16020205

Chicago/Turabian Style

So, Jeffrey T. H., Smita Nambiar, Rebecca Byrne, Danielle Gallegos, and Kimberley A. Baxter. 2024. "Dads at Mealtimes: Associations between Food Security, Household and Work Chaos, and Paternal Feeding Practices among Australian Fathers Living with Disadvantage" Nutrients 16, no. 2: 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16020205

APA Style

So, J. T. H., Nambiar, S., Byrne, R., Gallegos, D., & Baxter, K. A. (2024). Dads at Mealtimes: Associations between Food Security, Household and Work Chaos, and Paternal Feeding Practices among Australian Fathers Living with Disadvantage. Nutrients, 16(2), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16020205

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