Examining social and family contextual differences between parental feeding practice profiles in UK parents of pre-school children

Hannah Povall; Jackie Blissett; Abigail Pickard; Katie L. Edwards; Catherine G. Russell; Kathleen Lacy; Claire Farrow

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2026.108516

Examining social and family contextual differences between parental feeding practice profiles in UK parents of pre-school children

Hannah Povall^*
, Jackie Blissett
, Abigail Pickard
, Katie L. Edwards
, Catherine G. Russell
, Kathleen Lacy
, Claire Farrow

^*Corresponding author for this work

School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Prior research has utilised person-centred approaches to identify parent feeding profiles distinguished by controlling and structure-based practices, but less research has examined autonomy support-based practices, or how social and family contextual factors differ between feeding profiles. This study aimed to identify profiles of parents with similar patterns of feeding practices and to examine whether profiles differ on family contextual factors. In 2022, 989 UK parents of children aged 3-6 years (M = 4.1 years) completed an online survey, which included the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ), measuring parental feeding practices, and validated questionnaires capturing family contextual variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted to identify parent feeding profiles using the CFPQ. A MANCOVA assessed differences in family contextual variables between profiles. LPA identified three profiles based on common model fit indices and theoretical considerations. Profile 1 ‘moderate control’ (25.2%) showed moderate use of controlling practices and low use of structure-based and autonomy support-based practices. Profile 2 ‘structured and supportive’ (29.6%) showed low use of controlling practices and high use of structure-based and autonomy support-based practices. Profile 3 ‘using everything’ (45.2%) showed high use of all three types of feeding practices. Parents in the ‘moderate control’ profile had significantly lower parental wellbeing and reported more barriers of time and energy for meal planning compared to other profiles. In contrast, parents in the ‘structured and supportive’ profile had significantly lower household chaos and lower parental stress. Mothers had a higher proportion of membership to the ‘structured and supportive’ profile (33.9%) compared to other profiles, whereas fathers had a higher membership proportion to the ‘using everything’ profile (60.9%). Future interventions should be tailored to parent feeding practice profiles and associated family contextual factors.

Original language	English
Article number	108516
Number of pages	14
Journal	Appetite
Volume	222
Early online date	26 Feb 2026
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2026.108516
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 26 Feb 2026

Bibliographical note

Data Access Statement

The anonymised dataset generated and analysed during the current study is available on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/zdt3x. Information about the larger research study (APPETItE) can be found at https://osf.io/r6789.

Funding

The data collection was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/v014153/1). The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data, and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. Hannah Povall is supported by a PhD studentship from Aston University and Deakin University.

Access to Document

10.1016/j.appet.2026.108516Licence: CC BY 4.0

Examining social and family contextual differences between parental feeding practice profiles in UK parents of pre-school children
Copyright © 2026 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Final published version, 3.12 MBLicence: CC BY 4.0

Cite this

@article{3ed7cf139f2349b29b94d03a6d30a194,

title = "Examining social and family contextual differences between parental feeding practice profiles in UK parents of pre-school children",

abstract = "Prior research has utilised person-centred approaches to identify parent feeding profiles distinguished by controlling and structure-based practices, but less research has examined autonomy support-based practices, or how social and family contextual factors differ between feeding profiles. This study aimed to identify profiles of parents with similar patterns of feeding practices and to examine whether profiles differ on family contextual factors. In 2022, 989 UK parents of children aged 3-6 years (M = 4.1 years) completed an online survey, which included the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ), measuring parental feeding practices, and validated questionnaires capturing family contextual variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted to identify parent feeding profiles using the CFPQ. A MANCOVA assessed differences in family contextual variables between profiles. LPA identified three profiles based on common model fit indices and theoretical considerations. Profile 1 {\textquoteleft}moderate control{\textquoteright} (25.2\%) showed moderate use of controlling practices and low use of structure-based and autonomy support-based practices. Profile 2 {\textquoteleft}structured and supportive{\textquoteright} (29.6\%) showed low use of controlling practices and high use of structure-based and autonomy support-based practices. Profile 3 {\textquoteleft}using everything{\textquoteright} (45.2\%) showed high use of all three types of feeding practices. Parents in the {\textquoteleft}moderate control{\textquoteright} profile had significantly lower parental wellbeing and reported more barriers of time and energy for meal planning compared to other profiles. In contrast, parents in the {\textquoteleft}structured and supportive{\textquoteright} profile had significantly lower household chaos and lower parental stress. Mothers had a higher proportion of membership to the {\textquoteleft}structured and supportive{\textquoteright} profile (33.9\%) compared to other profiles, whereas fathers had a higher membership proportion to the {\textquoteleft}using everything{\textquoteright} profile (60.9\%). Future interventions should be tailored to parent feeding practice profiles and associated family contextual factors.",

author = "Hannah Povall and Jackie Blissett and Abigail Pickard and Edwards, \{Katie L.\} and Russell, \{Catherine G.\} and Kathleen Lacy and Claire Farrow",

note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2026 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).",

year = "2026",

month = feb,

day = "26",

doi = "10.1016/j.appet.2026.108516",

language = "English",

volume = "222",

journal = "Appetite",

issn = "0195-6663",

publisher = "Academic Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Examining social and family contextual differences between parental feeding practice profiles in UK parents of pre-school children

AU - Povall, Hannah

AU - Blissett, Jackie

AU - Pickard, Abigail

AU - Edwards, Katie L.

AU - Russell, Catherine G.

AU - Lacy, Kathleen

AU - Farrow, Claire

PY - 2026/2/26

Y1 - 2026/2/26

N2 - Prior research has utilised person-centred approaches to identify parent feeding profiles distinguished by controlling and structure-based practices, but less research has examined autonomy support-based practices, or how social and family contextual factors differ between feeding profiles. This study aimed to identify profiles of parents with similar patterns of feeding practices and to examine whether profiles differ on family contextual factors. In 2022, 989 UK parents of children aged 3-6 years (M = 4.1 years) completed an online survey, which included the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ), measuring parental feeding practices, and validated questionnaires capturing family contextual variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted to identify parent feeding profiles using the CFPQ. A MANCOVA assessed differences in family contextual variables between profiles. LPA identified three profiles based on common model fit indices and theoretical considerations. Profile 1 ‘moderate control’ (25.2%) showed moderate use of controlling practices and low use of structure-based and autonomy support-based practices. Profile 2 ‘structured and supportive’ (29.6%) showed low use of controlling practices and high use of structure-based and autonomy support-based practices. Profile 3 ‘using everything’ (45.2%) showed high use of all three types of feeding practices. Parents in the ‘moderate control’ profile had significantly lower parental wellbeing and reported more barriers of time and energy for meal planning compared to other profiles. In contrast, parents in the ‘structured and supportive’ profile had significantly lower household chaos and lower parental stress. Mothers had a higher proportion of membership to the ‘structured and supportive’ profile (33.9%) compared to other profiles, whereas fathers had a higher membership proportion to the ‘using everything’ profile (60.9%). Future interventions should be tailored to parent feeding practice profiles and associated family contextual factors.

AB - Prior research has utilised person-centred approaches to identify parent feeding profiles distinguished by controlling and structure-based practices, but less research has examined autonomy support-based practices, or how social and family contextual factors differ between feeding profiles. This study aimed to identify profiles of parents with similar patterns of feeding practices and to examine whether profiles differ on family contextual factors. In 2022, 989 UK parents of children aged 3-6 years (M = 4.1 years) completed an online survey, which included the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ), measuring parental feeding practices, and validated questionnaires capturing family contextual variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted to identify parent feeding profiles using the CFPQ. A MANCOVA assessed differences in family contextual variables between profiles. LPA identified three profiles based on common model fit indices and theoretical considerations. Profile 1 ‘moderate control’ (25.2%) showed moderate use of controlling practices and low use of structure-based and autonomy support-based practices. Profile 2 ‘structured and supportive’ (29.6%) showed low use of controlling practices and high use of structure-based and autonomy support-based practices. Profile 3 ‘using everything’ (45.2%) showed high use of all three types of feeding practices. Parents in the ‘moderate control’ profile had significantly lower parental wellbeing and reported more barriers of time and energy for meal planning compared to other profiles. In contrast, parents in the ‘structured and supportive’ profile had significantly lower household chaos and lower parental stress. Mothers had a higher proportion of membership to the ‘structured and supportive’ profile (33.9%) compared to other profiles, whereas fathers had a higher membership proportion to the ‘using everything’ profile (60.9%). Future interventions should be tailored to parent feeding practice profiles and associated family contextual factors.

UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666326000784?via%3Dihub

U2 - 10.1016/j.appet.2026.108516

DO - 10.1016/j.appet.2026.108516

M3 - Article

SN - 0195-6663

VL - 222

JO - Appetite

JF - Appetite

M1 - 108516

ER -

Examining social and family contextual differences between parental feeding practice profiles in UK parents of pre-school children

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Data Access Statement

Funding

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this