PDF(Pubmed)
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.
METHODS: Cross-sectional online study to assess written ECE CNBP using the Wellness Child Care Assessment Tool.
METHODS: Licenced ECE centres in the state of Victoria, Australia.
METHODS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
METHODS: Cross-sectional online study to assess written ECE CNBP using the Wellness Child Care Assessment Tool.
METHODS: Licenced ECE centres in the state of Victoria, Australia.
METHODS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
目标：评估幼儿教育（ECE）中心内的中心营养政策（CBNP）的全面性（营养指导的范围）和强度（书面语言的清晰度）。还考虑现有CBNP评估工具的适用性以及与最佳做法食品供应和喂养做法的政策一致性。
方法：使用健康儿童护理评估工具（WellCCAT）评估基于ECE中心的书面营养政策的横断面在线研究。
方法：维多利亚州获得许可的ECE中心，澳大利亚。
方法：ECE中心（每天至少运行8小时，每年48周)，按地点(农村和大都市)分层，中心管理类型(营利性和非营利性)，和社会经济领域(低，中间,高)。
结果：包括单个CBNP（n=118），主要来自大都市中心(56%)和中低社会经济地区(78%)。政策总体WellCCAT得分较低，特别是强度分数在所有四个领域都很低(即，营养教育,Standards,Promotion,和沟通/评估)。营养标准领域的强度得分最低。沟通/评估领域的综合得分最低。内容分析表明，由于最佳实践指导的差异，低分数可能与WellCCAT在澳大利亚环境中的适用性有关。
结论：尽管欧洲经委会中心有书面营养政策，许多人表现出语言薄弱，缺乏全面性和力量。这可能与最佳做法食品供应或喂养做法的执行不力有关。得分低,然而,可能部分源于使用非特定国家的评估工具。可能有必要重新开发针对特定国家的工具，以评估欧洲经委会基于中心的营养政策。
方法：使用健康儿童护理评估工具（WellCCAT）评估基于ECE中心的书面营养政策的横断面在线研究。
方法：维多利亚州获得许可的ECE中心，澳大利亚。
方法：ECE中心（每天至少运行8小时，每年48周)，按地点(农村和大都市)分层，中心管理类型(营利性和非营利性)，和社会经济领域(低，中间,高)。
结果：包括单个CBNP（n=118），主要来自大都市中心(56%)和中低社会经济地区(78%)。政策总体WellCCAT得分较低，特别是强度分数在所有四个领域都很低(即，营养教育,Standards,Promotion,和沟通/评估)。营养标准领域的强度得分最低。沟通/评估领域的综合得分最低。内容分析表明，由于最佳实践指导的差异，低分数可能与WellCCAT在澳大利亚环境中的适用性有关。
结论：尽管欧洲经委会中心有书面营养政策，许多人表现出语言薄弱，缺乏全面性和力量。这可能与最佳做法食品供应或喂养做法的执行不力有关。得分低,然而,可能部分源于使用非特定国家的评估工具。可能有必要重新开发针对特定国家的工具，以评估欧洲经委会基于中心的营养政策。
