2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.101021
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Approximately 15 million children under age 6 are in childcare settings, offering childcare providers an opportunity to influence children’s dietary intake. Childcare settings vary in organizational structure – childcare centers (CCCs) vs. family childcare homes (FCCHs) – and in geographical location – urban vs. rural. Research on the nutrition-related best practices across these childcare settings is scarce. The objective of this study is to compare nutrition-related best practices of CCCs and FCCHs that part… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

6
21
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
6
21
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, and contrary to our hypothesis, we found that centers reported more challenges with needing more time, money, and staff to support implementation of the standards from baseline to follow-up. While these challenges are consistent with reported challenges that ECE centers face with CACFP generally [7,8,21], it is possible that, at the time of the baseline survey (which occurred immediately prior to the implementation effective date), centers did not yet have a sense of the resources that would be required for implementation. Once they began implementation, however, they may have realized that they needed more resources to support implementation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…However, and contrary to our hypothesis, we found that centers reported more challenges with needing more time, money, and staff to support implementation of the standards from baseline to follow-up. While these challenges are consistent with reported challenges that ECE centers face with CACFP generally [7,8,21], it is possible that, at the time of the baseline survey (which occurred immediately prior to the implementation effective date), centers did not yet have a sense of the resources that would be required for implementation. Once they began implementation, however, they may have realized that they needed more resources to support implementation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…There is evidence that characteristics of childcare centers such as location and CACFP participation may influence implementation of nutrition policies (25)(26)(27)(28). We theorized that larger, urban childcare centers serving higher income populations would have higher adherence to the regulations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…For example, a cross-sectional study of Rhode Island childcare center directors also showed comparable compliance with prohibition of sugar-sweetened beverages (30). However, results from a study of adherence in Nebraska childcare centers found sub-optimal reported implementation (80% or less) of several nutrition best practices (25). A Delaware assessment showed compliance ranging from 35.6% for water availability outside to 88% for juice type (31).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite being evidence-based based and recommended, implementation of responsive feeding in ECE is sub-optimal. For instance, in Nebraska, Dev, Garcia, Dzewaltowski et al (32) found that only 50% ECE teachers ate the same foods and beverages as children at meals and less than 43% ECEs served meals family style. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, approximately 32% of ECEs reported using food as rewards and punishment, and only 51% have at least one adult sit at the table and eat the same food served to the children (33).…”
Section: Although Research Shows That Cacfp Ensures Availability Of Nmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sub-optimal use of responsive feeding EBPs can be attributed to implementation challenges reported at multiple levels within the ECE setting: the administrative level; classroom or teacher-level; and child-level. Challenges for supporting implementation of responsive feeding EBPs at the administrative level include expectations for teachers to perform other classroom duties during mealtimes (35); need for additional resources (such as providing meals for teachers to be able to eat together with children (32,35,36) and additional serving utensils needed for family style meal service (37); misconceptions regarding CACFP reimbursement (37,38); concerns about plate-waste; and fear of negative parental reaction if children don't eat enough in the ECE (39,40). At the ECE classroom-level, teachers have reported family style meal service is messy, unhygienic, and time consuming (37); have misconceptions children may overserve or not eat enough (37,38); and personal taste preferences for not eating the same foods served to the children (35,39).…”
Section: Although Research Shows That Cacfp Ensures Availability Of Nmentioning
confidence: 99%