Premium
Does infant mood affect offered bottle size? An exploratory analysis of secondary objectives of the Baby‐Mine study
Author(s) -
Nicklas Jennifer C,
Greer Betty P,
Burney Janie L,
Kavanagh Katie F
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.26.1_supplement.264.4
Subject(s) - mood , bottle , affect (linguistics) , categorization , medicine , sample size determination , psychology , demography , clinical psychology , statistics , mathematics , geography , philosophy , communication , archaeology , epistemology , sociology
A secondary objective of a larger project assessing impact of bottle contents on rate of infant weight gain was to evaluate the relationship between infant mood and offered bottle size. Mothers of healthy, term, formula‐fed infants (< 3 months) were recruited via fliers, social media websites, and a birth registry. Mothers were asked, at two time points, to record infant intake for 48 hours and to indicate infant mood prior to each offered bottle (unhappy, neither, or happy). Mid‐point analysis consisted of 31 mothers with complete data at both time points (TP): TP1 ~2.3 mo of age and TP2 ~4.1 mo of age. The sample was somewhat heavily weighted towards male infants (58.1%). Average birthweight was 3230g, and infants gained an average of 27.4g/d while in the study. Average size of bottles offered increased from TP1 (4.8oz) to TP2 (5.8oz). Mood categorization resulted in 45.2% of infants categorized as “happy” at TP1 and 51.6% as “neither” at TP2. ANOVA, with mood as the categorical variable, detected no relationship between mood and bottle size offered. Additional categorization of bottle size into “small” (≤ 4 oz) and “large” (>4 oz) did not result in significant findings. However, the sample size at the mid‐point evaluation likely precludes the detection of a significant difference, should it exist, and a larger sample size is needed. Data collection is ongoing and more robust results and suggested future work will be presented. Funds: USDA/NIFA/AFRI Award ‐2010‐85215‐20663.