Pediatric Weight Management

PWM: Eating Behaviors of Children (2006)

Citation:

Kaiser LL, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Lamp CL, Johns MC, Sutherlin JM, Harwood JO.  Food security and nutritional outcomes of preschool-age Mexican-American children. J Am Diet Assoc 2002; 102: 924-929.

PubMed ID: 12146552
 
Study Design:
Cross-Sectional Study
Class:
D - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Neutral NEUTRAL: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:

To examine the relationship of food insecurity to nutrition of Mexican-American pre-schoolers.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • At least one of the parents claimed to be of Mexican-American heritage
  • Between 36 and 72 months of age.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Twins
  • Homeless
  • Developmentally disabled.
Description of Study Protocol:

A convenience sample of Mexican-American families (N=211) was recruited through two programs:

  • Head Start, Healthy Start, Migrant Education
  • The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) in Tulare, Fresno, Monterey and Kern counties in California.

Food security data was gathered using the Radimer/ Cornell scale.

Statistical Analyses

ANOVA for weight for height and height for age Z score comparisons; Mentel-Haenszel Chi2 for comparison by OW status (nonparametric test because dependent variable not normally distributed).

Data Collection Summary:

Dependent Variables

  • Height for age Z score
  • Weight for height Z score
  • Overweight: Greater than 85th percentile weight for height Z
  • Obese: Greater than 95th percentile weight for height Z (measured height, weight; WHO/NCHS reference)

Independent Variables 

Food insecurity in past month (12-item Radimer/Cornell scale) 

  • None = Food secure
  • Mild = Household level
  • Moderate = Caregiver level
  • Severe = Child level. 

Confounding Variables

Maternal acculturation. 

Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • N: 211 males and females
  • Age: Three to six years old
  • Ethnicity: All Mexican-American
  • SES: Low-income
  • Location: Four counties in California.
Summary of Results:

  • No difference in growth percentiles between groups based on food insecurity status
  • But families with food insecurity at the household level tended to have the highest mean weight for height Z and percentage of children who were overweight and obese.

Characteristics Associated with Food Security

Food insecure households were more likely to be characterized by:

  • Limited education
  • Lack of English proficiency
  • Low income (all P<0.0001).

Author Conclusion:

Although weight for height Z score and percent overweight tended to peak among children from food insecure families, no significant differences were found in weight or height status of children by level of food insecurity.

Funding Source:
Not-for-profit
0
Foundation associated with industry:
Reviewer Comments:

Weaknesses:

  • Convenience sample
  • Low power
  • One season during the year, so cannot examine seasonal variation that may be experienced as many in this study were from migrant farmworker families
  • Controlled only for maternal acculturation
  • Did not assess fluctuations in food availability.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) N/A
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? N/A
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) N/A
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) N/A
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? No
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? No
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? N/A
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? N/A
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? N/A
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? N/A
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? Yes
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes