An assessment of the potential of family day care as a nutrition promotion setting in South Australia

Articles > Journals > Health journals > Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dieticians Association of Australia articles > March 2003 Article: An assessment of the potential of Family Day Care as a nutrition promotion setting in South Australia. (Original Research). Article from:Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dieticians Association of Australia Article date:March 1, 2003 Author:Daniels, Lynne A.; Franco, Bunny; McWhinnie, Julie-Anne CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2006 Dietitians Association of Australia. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights or concerns about this content should be directed to customer service. (Hide copyright information) Related articles Ads by Google TAFE Child Care Courses Government accredited courses. Study anytime, anywhere. www.seeklearning.com.au Get Work in Child Care Certificate III Children's Services 4 Day Course + Take Home Assessment HBAconsult.com.au Abstract Objective: To assess the potential role of Family Day Care in nutrition promotion for preschool children. Design and setting: A questionnaire to examine nutrition-related issues and practices was mailed to care providers registered in the southern region of Adelaide, South Australia. Care providers also supplied a descriptive, qualitative recall of the food provided by parents or themselves to each child less than five years of age in their care on the day closest to completion of the questionnaire. Subjects: 255 care providers. The response rate was 63% and covered 643 preschool children, mean 4.6 (SD 2.8) children per carer. Results: There was clear agreement that nutrition promotion was a relevant issue for Family Day Care providers. Nutrition and food hygiene knowledge was good but only 54% of respondents felt confident to address food quality issues with parents. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported non-neutral approaches to food refusal and dawdling (reward, punishment, cajoling) that overrode the child's control of the amount eaten. The food recalls indicated that most children (> 75%) were offered fruit at least once. Depending on the hours in care, (0 to 4, 5 to 8, greater than 8 hours), 20%, 32% and 55%, respectively, of children were offered milk and 65%, 82% and 87%, respectively, of children were offered high fat and sugar foods. Conclusions: Questionnaire responses suggest that many care providers are committed to and proactive in a range of nutrition promotion activities. There is scope for strengthening skills in the management of common problems, such as food refusal and dawdling, consistent with the current evidence for approaches to early feeding management that promote the development of healthy food preferences and eating patterns. Legitimising and empowering care providers in their nutrition promotion role requires clear policies, guide lines, adequate pre- and in-service training, suitable parent materials, and monitoring.