Search

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link. The main aim of the current study was to test the hypothesis that early reactions to a vegetable in infants may be associated with sensory processing, in particular, tactile over-responsivity. A secondary aim was to see whether the relationship between sensory over-responsivity and vegetable consumption would be moderated by the age of the infant. A sample of 61 infants was recruited from children's centres and playgroups in South Birmingham, UK. Infant's acceptance of carrot was measured in grams during the first week of complementary feeding in one testing situation. Mothers filled in self-report measures of infant sensory processing, as well as their own fruit and vegetable consumption. Infant carrot consumption in the first week of solid food consumption was negatively associated with total sensory over-responsivity across different sensory domains (P 0.05). This study constitutes some of the first evidence to suggest that sensory processing styles be associated with early vegetable acceptance; however, more research is needed to evaluate the best strategies to use when feeding infants who are sensitive to tactile information.

BACKGROUND: Due to contradictory findings regarding the effects of seeing and holding stillborn infants on women's worsening mental health symptoms, there is a lack of clear of guidance in stillbirth bereavement care. Although some current research examines this phenomenon we are still not certain of the meaning of such experiences to women and what effects there may be on her subsequent parenting. Thus the present study focuses on the meaning of the stillbirth experience to women and its influence on the subsequent pregnancy and subsequent parenting from the mothers' own experiences. METHODS: A purposive sample of six women who experienced a stillbirth during their first pregnancy and who then went on to give birth to a living child after a further pregnancy, took part in email interviews, providing rich and detailed experiential narratives about both the stillbirth itself, and their relationship with their living child. An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis was carried out in order to focus on mothers making sense of such experiences. RESULTS: Analysis of written accounts led to the development of three overarching themes. In 'Broken Canopy', 'How This Happened' and 'Continuing Bonds', their accounts revealed an ongoing process where women accepted a new 'unsafe' view of the world, re-evaluated their view of self and others, and established relationships with both the deceased and the living infant. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an insight into the stillbirth experience of mothers and its meaning to them with an existential focus. Typically the mother struggled with the contradictory process of accepting the existence of her deceased baby (this baby once lived) while being aware of the nonexistence (this baby). Meeting the dead baby was a crucial point at which the mother started processing her grief. The importance of individual differences in dealing with stressful situations was highlighted in terms of attachment strategies. Subsequent parenting experiences of mothers were very much influenced by their own previous experiences. Although some mothers managed to integrate this trauma into their life some remained very concerned and anxious about future and this anxiety then translated into their parenting experiences.

Children begin to reject new foods (food neophobia) at around 18 to 30 months. At this time parents also report the rejection of known and previously accepted foods. The studies presented here are the first to examine this rejection of previously accepted foods in isolation and presents a number of significant findings. Using a parental questionnaire, it was found that the rejection of known and previously accepted food begins towards the end of infancy, commonly occurs during nursery age, reduces in frequency after 30 months and most often involves the rejection of vegetables, mixed foods and fruit. It is hypothesised that some known and previously accepted foods are rejected due to an extension of the neophobic response. When neophobia begins, infants become hyper-vigilant to the visual perceptual features of food in order to recognise the food given. Foods not matching learnt expectations, due to perceptual changes between servings, may be categorised as ‘new’ or ‘different’ and rejected in a neophobic response. A second study offers some support for this hypothesis, showing that those children who are reported as having rejected a known and previously accepted food score higher on neophobia and ‘picky’ eating scales. Implications are discussed.

Disgust, the “revulsion at the prospect of (oral) incorporation of an offensive substance”, is not thought to influence the acceptability of food during infancy and early childhood. This is because the feelings of disgust require a person to have developed an understanding of contagion and to be aware of the nature and origin of a given disgust stimulus, which does not occur until around seven years of age. Despite this need for higher cognitive functioning, studies have demonstrated the potential for disgust in children as young as two years of age. Furthermore, it seems that young children can demonstrate aspects of disgust without having the cognitive understanding of contagion. This review is the first paper to demonstrate how core disgust may influence the acceptability of foods from late infancy. Firstly, food neophobia may act as a catalyst for disgust. Secondly, that disgust in young children can result from the visual perceptual features of food (as opposed to a cognitive response based on non-food disgust stimuli). Thirdly, that some disliked foods have contaminating properties, much like non-food, adult disgust stimuli (e.g. insects). Fourthly, that the response reduces as the child ages and learns more about food and its variability between presentations. Finally, individual differences exist to explain why an individual child may be more or less likely to respond to a given food with a disgust response. This proposal adds to the current debate relating to the motivations of ‘picky’ eating during early childhood and introduces an alternative to the proposal that these behaviours are the result of a child’s desire for autonomy.