TABLE 3

Bivariate and Adjusted Associations Between Morning Stress and Mood Levels With Evening Food Pressuring and Restrictive Feeding Practices (N = 150 Caregivers; N = 1044 Meal Occasions)

Independent Predictor: StressOR95% CIPIndependent Predictor: MoodOR95% CIP
Full sample adjusted analyses
 Pressure to eat1.45(1.08 to 1.94).013* Pressure to eat1.42(1.01 to 1.99).043*
 Restriction1.26(0.96 to 1.64).091 Restriction1.24(0.96 to 1.58).096
Stratified by race and/or ethnicity
 African American (N = 25, N = 170 meals)African American (N = 25, N = 170 meals)
  Pressure to eat1.46(0.45 to 4.74).531 Pressure to eat1.05(0.51 to 2.14).894
  Restriction1.02(0.56 to 1.84).951 Restriction1.04(0.56 to 1.93).892
 White (N = 25, N = 182 meals)White (N = 25, N = 182 meals)
  Pressure to eat0.90(0.56 to 1.44).661 Pressure to eat0.49(0.19 to 1.26).140
  Restriction0.47(0.19 to 1.16).100 Restriction0.81(0.16 to 4.21).807
 Hmong (N = 25, N = 185 meals)Hmong (N = 25, N = 185 meals)
  Pressure to eat1.14(0.67 to 1.95).633 Pressure to eat1.09(0.55 to 2.13).811
  Restriction1.42(0.78 to 2.60).253 Restriction1.27(0.70 to 2.31).438
 Hispanic/Latino (N = 25, N = 178 meals)Hispanic/Latino (N = 25, N = 178 meals)
  Pressure to eat1.12(0.76 to 1.63).566 Pressure to eat1.09(0.61 to 1.97).764
  Restriction0.97(0.60 to 1.56).888 Restriction0.97(0.48 to 1.94).925
 American Indian (N = 25, N = 162 meals)American Indian (N = 25, N = 162 meals)
  Pressure to eat2.64(1.49 to 4.67).001* Pressure to eat2.40(1.29 to 4.49).006*
  Restriction1.19(0.61 to 2.32).614 Restriction1.24(0.76 to 2.00).390
 Somali (N = 25, N = 167 meals)Somali (N = 25, N = 167 meals)
  Pressure to eat2.02(1.05 to 3.91).036* Pressure to eat1.55(0.79 to 3.02).203
  Restriction1.49(0.80 to 2.77).210 Restriction1.06(0.63 to 1.80).819
  • Adjusted models include covariates: primary caregiver and/or child age, sex, and weight status; family race; weekend or weekday observation. Interpretation example: a 1-unit increase in morning stress was associated with 45% greater odds of pressure-to-eat feeding practices (OR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.94, P = .013) the same night at dinner, after controlling for all other covariates in the adjusted models. Effect modification interpretation: the relationship between stress and pressure-to-eat feeding practices was strongest for American Indian caregivers (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.49 to 4.67, P = .001) and for Somali caregivers (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.05 to 3.91, P = .36).

  • * P < .05.