Skip to main content

Table 4 Effects of chronic and lagged transient stressors on pressure-to-eat or restriction parent feeding practices at meals (N=61 participants; 383 observation days)a

From: Examining within- and across-day relationships between transient and chronic stress and parent food-related parenting practices in a racially/ethnically diverse and immigrant population

 

Outcome: pressure-to-eat feeding practices

Outcome: restriction feeding practices

Independent predictor variable

Mean response

95% CI

P valueb

Mean response

95% CI

P value

Chronic stressors

 High chronic stress indicator (ref: low chronic stress)

-0.12

(-0.28, 0.05)

0.161

-0.09

(-0.25, 0.07)

0.249

Stressful life events (prior 6 months)

 Active (ref: no active events)

0.03

(-0.09, 0.16)

0.632

-0.04

(-0.17, 0.08)

0.479

 Resolved (ref: no resolved events)

0.15

(0.05, 0.26)

0.005

-0.01

(-0.12, 0.10)

0.856

Transient stressors

Lagged sources of stress

"A lot of work at home, school, or job"

 L0. (same day)

-0.03

(-0.08, 0.02)

0.291

0.04

(-0.02, 0.10)

0.180

 L1. (second day)

-0.01

(-0.06, 0.04)

0.771

-0.02

(-0.08, 0.03)

0.391

 L2. (third day)

0.01

(-0.04, 0.06)

0.755

0.00

(-0.05, 0.06)

0.926

"Conflicts with spouse, partner, or children"

 L0. (same day)c

0.05

(-0.02, 0.11)

0.147

0.09

(0.03, 0.16)

0.005

 L1. (second day)

-0.05

(-0.12, 0.01)

0.090

0.01

(-0.06, 0.08)

0.764

 L2. (third day)

0.06

(0.00, 0.12)

0.047

0.04

(-0.03, 0.10)

0.243

"Financial problems"

 L0. (same day)

-0.06

(-0.18, 0.06)

0.311

0.02

(-0.11, 0.15)

0.753

 L1. (second day)

0.08

(-0.05, 0.22)

0.215

0.04

(-0.10, 0.18)

0.564

 L2. (third day)

-0.01

(-0.14, 0.12)

0.901

0.06

(-0.08, 0.19)

0.422

  1. aModel adjusted for: Parent sex, age, race, country of origin, relationship status, acculturation status (assimilation, separation, and integration), and day of the week
  2. Interpretation Example: High chronic stress over the last 30 days (indicator coded "high or low") was not statistically associated with either food pressuring or restriction (P > 0.05). Parents with resolved stressful life events were more likely to pressure (0.15, 95% CI: (0.05, 0.26), P=0.005), and those who reported low food security (relative to the most food secure) were more likely to use restrictive feeding practices (0.32, 95% CI: (0.07, 0.56)).
  3. bBoldface values indicate statistical significance at p < 0.05.
  4. c Interpersonal transient stressors (i.e., conflicts with partners and children) were strongly, positively related to the fraction of meals in which restrictive feeding practices were used within the day (0.09, 95% CI: (0.03, 0.16), P=0.005), however there was not evidence of a persistent lag effect (P>0.05)