Nutrition environments in early childhood education: do they align with best practice?

Anna Aristova, Alison C Spence, Christopher Irwin, Audrey Elford, Laura Graham, Penelope Love
Author Information
  1. Anna Aristova: School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC3216, Australia. ORCID
  2. Alison C Spence: Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
  3. Christopher Irwin: School of Health Sciences and Social Work (SHS), Nutrition and Dietetics, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
  4. Audrey Elford: Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. ORCID
  5. Laura Graham: School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC3216, Australia.
  6. Penelope Love: Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comprehensiveness (scope of nutrition guidance) and strength (clarity of written language) of centre-based nutrition policies (CBNP) within early childhood education (ECE) centres. To also consider the applicability of an existing CBNP assessment tool and policy alignment with best practice food provision and feeding practices.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional online study to assess written ECE CNBP using the Wellness Child Care Assessment Tool.
SETTING: Licenced ECE centres in the state of Victoria, Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: ECE centres (operating at least 8 h per d, 48 weeks per annum), stratified by location (rural and metropolitan), centre management type (profit and not-for-profit) and socio-economic area (low, middle, high).
RESULTS: Included individual CBNP ( 118), predominantly from metropolitan centres (56 %) and low-medium socio-economic areas (78 %). Policies had low overall Wellness Child Care Assessment Tool scores, particularly strength scores which were low across all four domains (i.e. nutrition education, nutrition standards, health promotion and communication/evaluation). The nutrition standards domain had the lowest strength score. The communication/evaluation domain had the lowest comprehensiveness score. Content analysis indicated low scores may relate to the Wellness Child Care Assessment Tool applicability for the Australian context due to differences in best practice guidance.
CONCLUSION: Despite the presence of written nutrition policies in ECE centres, many showed weak language and lacked comprehensiveness and strength. This may relate to poor implementation of best practice food provision or feeding practices. Low scores, however, may partly stem from using an assessment tool that is not country-specific. The redevelopment of country-specific tools to assess ECE CNBP may be warranted.

Keywords

References

  1. Implement Sci. 2019 Feb 18;14(1):17 [PMID: 30777080]
  2. Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1958-1972 [PMID: 30954305]
  3. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Sep;43(3):304-8 [PMID: 22898124]
  4. Public Health Nutr. 2016 Jun;19(9):1531-42 [PMID: 26466671]
  5. Prev Med Rep. 2019 Nov 29;17:101021 [PMID: 31908908]
  6. Nutrients. 2018 Mar 01;10(3): [PMID: 29494537]
  7. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 10;2:CD011779 [PMID: 32036618]
  8. Health Promot J Austr. 2024 Jan;35(1):122-133 [PMID: 36998156]
  9. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015 Mar;115(3):419-425.e3 [PMID: 25441964]
  10. Public Health Nutr. 2016 Sep;19(13):2451-7 [PMID: 27280552]
  11. Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):91-102 [PMID: 27717615]
  12. Nutr Rev. 2022 Apr 8;80(5):1247-1273 [PMID: 35393619]
  13. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019 Apr;28(2):171-193 [PMID: 30832951]
  14. Prev Med. 2015 Aug;77:80-98 [PMID: 25964078]
  15. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Aug 23;13(9): [PMID: 27563917]
  16. J Sch Health. 2021 Jul;91(7):562-573 [PMID: 33954996]
  17. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015 Apr-Jun;4(2):187-92 [PMID: 25949965]
  18. Ann Nutr Metab. 2019;74 Suppl 2:29-42 [PMID: 31234189]
  19. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 May 18;9(10):e014520 [PMID: 32389066]
  20. J Am Diet Assoc. 2011 Dec;111(12):1852-60 [PMID: 22117661]
  21. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 May 25;17(10): [PMID: 32466111]
  22. J Clin Periodontol. 2017 May;44(5):456-462 [PMID: 28419559]
  23. Prev Med. 2018 Jan;106:13-25 [PMID: 29038034]
  24. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 17;17(18): [PMID: 32957687]
  25. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017 Aug;41(4):345-351 [PMID: 28616873]
  26. Paediatr Child Health. 2020 May 27;26(2):82-84 [PMID: 33747303]
  27. Prev Med. 2017 Feb;95 Suppl:S37-S52 [PMID: 27693295]
  28. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 12;6:CD013862 [PMID: 37306513]
  29. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 19;18(2): [PMID: 33478165]

MeSH Term

Humans
Nutrition Policy
Cross-Sectional Studies
Child, Preschool
Victoria
Child Day Care Centers
Health Promotion
Female
Male

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0nutritionECEcentresstrengthchildhoodbestlowscoresmayassesscomprehensivenesswrittenCBNPeducationpracticeWellnessChildCareAssessmentToolNutritionguidancelanguagepoliciesearlyapplicabilityassessmenttoolpolicyfoodprovisionfeedingpracticesCNBPusingpermetropolitansocio-economic%standardscommunication/evaluationdomainlowestscorerelatecountry-specificenvironmentsOBJECTIVE:scopeclaritycentre-basedwithinalsoconsiderexistingalignmentDESIGN:Cross-sectionalonlinestudySETTING:LicencedstateVictoriaAustraliaPARTICIPANTS:operatingleast8hd48weeksannumstratifiedlocationruralcentremanagementtypeprofitnot-for-profitareamiddlehighRESULTS:Includedindividual118predominantly56low-mediumareas78PoliciesoverallparticularlyacrossfourdomainsiehealthpromotionContentanalysisindicatedAustraliancontextduedifferencesCONCLUSION:DespitepresencemanyshowedweaklackedpoorimplementationLowhoweverpartlystemredevelopmenttoolswarrantededucation:alignpractice?EarlyEarlyLongdaycarePolicyassessments

Similar Articles

Cited By