J Intellect Disabil Res. 2025 Nov 2. doi: 10.1111/jir.70059. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Children with intellectual disabilities are at increased risk for obesity compared to their typically developing counterparts. However, little work has been done to determine whether and how parental feeding styles and parental feeding practices may be associated with obesity in this population of children.
METHODS: Fifty-nine typically developing children and 56 children with intellectual disabilities ages 3-8 years participated in the Children's Mealtime Study to compare parental feeding styles and practices and their association with obesity. Parents completed a demographic and medical questionnaire, the Caregiver Feeding Styles Questionnaire and the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire. Children's height and weight were measured using a portable stadiometer and digital scale.
RESULTS: The prevalence of obesity was higher in children with intellectual disabilities than in typically developing children (31.5% vs. 13.6%, respectively, p = 0.02). There were no differences in parental feeding styles between parents of children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing children. An 'indulgent' feeding style (low demandingness/high responsiveness) was associated with obesity in typically developing children but not in children with intellectual disabilities. Relative to feeding practices, parents of children with intellectual disabilities were more likely than parents of typically developing children to restrict food for weight control (p = 0.003), allow child control over eating (p = 0.005) and use food for emotion regulation (p = 0.01). Parents of typically developing children were more likely to encourage balance and variety (p = 0.02), exert pressure to eat (p = 0.007), teach about nutrition (p < 0.001) and involve their children in meal planning/preparation (p < 0.001) than parents of children with intellectual disabilities. Several feeding practices were significantly related to obesity, but none differed between children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing children. In particular, restriction for weight control and restriction for health were positively related to obesity whereas pressure and involvement were inversely related to obesity.
CONCLUSIONS: Parental feeding style was not associated with obesity in children with intellectual disabilities, which may suggest that weight status in this population is affected by other factors. Although there were differences between some feeding practices employed by parents of children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing parents, those associated with obesity did not differ between the two groups. Future work that sheds light on causal relationships between feeding practices and weight status in this population is warranted.
PMID:41177560 | DOI:10.1111/jir.70059