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

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 (n 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.

Nutrition and Brain Development

All nutrients are essential for brain development, but pre-clinical and clinical studies have revealed sensitive periods of brain development during which key nutrients are critical. An understanding of these nutrient-specific sensitive periods and the accompanying brain regions or processes that are developing can guide effective nutrition interventions as well as the choice of meaningful circuit-specific neurobehavioral tests to best determine outcome. For several nutrients including protein, iron, iodine, and choline, pre-clinical and clinical studies align to identify the same sensitive periods, while for other nutrients, such as long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, zinc, and vitamin D, pre-clinical models demonstrate benefit which is not consistently shown in clinical studies. This discordance of pre-clinical and clinical results is potentially due to key differences in the timing, dose, and/or duration of the nutritional intervention as well as the pre-existing nutritional status of the target population. In general, however, the optimal window of success for nutritional intervention to best support brain development is in late fetal and early postnatal life. Lack of essential nutrients during these times can lead to long-lasting dysfunction and significant loss of developmental potential.

A Primary Care-Based Early Childhood Nutrition Intervention: Evaluation of a Pilot Program Serving Low-Income Hispanic Women

Nutrition in early childhood can significantly impact physical and mental health outcomes for children. However, research on broadly defined pre/postnatal nutrition interventions is sparse. The present study is a process and outcome evaluation of a primary care-based nutrition intervention targeting low-income Hispanic women. Pregnant women enrolled in the program were in their first trimester and received services through their 6-month well child check. The program provided vouchers for fruits and vegetables from the local farmers' market, nutrition classes, cooking classes, and lactation counseling. We conducted a prospective study of program participants (n = 32) and a comparable group of women for whom the program was not available (n = 29). Panel survey data measured maternal diet, exercise, stress, depression, social support, infant feeding practices, and demographics. Outcome measures obtained from medical records included pregnancy weight gain, infant weight at 6 and 12 months, and infant development at 9 months. Findings reveal that the program was not associated with infant weights. However, despite similar profiles at baseline, women in the intervention group were more likely than women in the comparison group to have significant improvements in diet, exercise, and depression (p ≤ .05). In addition, participants were more likely to breastfeed (p = .07) and their infants were more likely to pass the ages and stages developmental screen (p = .06) than women in the comparison group. The study was limited by a lack of random assignment and small samples. However, the breadth and size of the effects suggest pre/postnatal nutrition interventions integrated into primary care warrant additional investigation.