Next Article in Journal
Body Mass Index (BMI) Is the Strongest Predictor of Systemic Hypertension and Cardiac Mass in a Cohort of Children
Next Article in Special Issue
Geographical Distribution of Dietary Patterns and Their Association with T2DM in Chinese Adults Aged 45 y and Above: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Measuring Sodium from Discretionary Salt: Comparison of Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dietary Patterns and Their Association with Cardiometabolic Biomarkers and Outcomes among Hispanic Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013–2018)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 15
Issue 24
10.3390/nu15245078
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Food Neophobia Occurrence in Children: A Study Carried out in Italy

by
Annalisa Di Nucci
1,
Simone Pilloni
2,
Umberto Scognamiglio
2 and
Laura Rossi
2,*
1
Department of Cardiovascular, Endocrine-Metabolic Diseases and Aging, Italian National Institute of Health, 00161 Rome, Italy
2
CREA Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, 00178 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2023, 15(24), 5078; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15245078
Submission received: 3 November 2023 / Revised: 6 December 2023 / Accepted: 8 December 2023 / Published: 12 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Eating Behavior, Dietary Patterns and Health Outcomes: Insights from Research and Practice)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Food Neophobia (FN), defined as the reluctance to eat new or unfamiliar foods, mainly concerns fruit, vegetables, and legumes, typical of the Mediterranean Diet (MD). Considering these premises, this study aimed to clarify the relationship between FN and AMD in a sample of Italian children and their association with some socio-demographic factors and children’s nutritional status. A sample of 288 children aged 3–11 years participated in an assessment carried out with a questionnaire evaluating FN and AMD, respectively, with the Child Food Neophobia Scale (CFNS) and the KIDMED test. Most of the sample showed an intermediate (67.3%) or high level of FN (18.1%), with high rates among 6–11-year-old children (63.9%) and especially in those who were the only child (50%). The AMD was mostly low (29.5%) or medium (54.8%) and reached lower levels among higher neophobic children (51.9%; p value < 0.05). The present results confirm the study hypothesis that FN is a driver of MD abandonment and shows the positive effects on children’s eating habits and siblings. Finally, this study proves the relevance of adopting effective feeding strategies against FN to avoid its maintenance in adulthood and the detrimental effects on future overall health and well-being.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Food preferences in children are linked to exposure to a high diversity of food in the early years, which improves dietary variety at later developmental stages [1]. The reluctance to eat new or unknown foods is defined as Food Neophobia (FN) [2,3]. It is a normal developmental phase, occurring without the distinction of gender, that typically peaks between 2 and 6 years of age and then gradually decreases into adulthood [2,4]. However, FN could have pervasive implications for food-related behaviors impacting the sensory perception of food in the sense that people with high levels of FN reported limited enjoyment of food [5].
Typical foods of the Mediterranean Diet (MD), such as fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes, are related to children’s FN [1]. MD is negatively associated with the risk of non-communicable chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all causes of mortality [6,7,8,9,10,11] when compared to the Western Diet [12]. Hence, the nonadherence to MD in developmental ages is a behavior that needs to be corrected. Eating habits and behaviors are shaped in childhood and then maintained in adulthood [13]; hence, it is important to act early on neophobic behavior to ensure that it does not impact diet quality [14].
Over the last years in Mediterranean Countries, a progressive abandoning of MD has been observed either in children or adults [15,16]. Among children in Italy, several reports showed an inadequate consumption of typical foods of MD, such as fruit, vegetables, and legumes [17,18].
Among neophobic children, it is common to find a high consumption of foods rich in saturated fatty acids and sugars [19,20,21], typical of a Western-style diet [12]. Poor dietary variety and quality due to FN could be a predictor of childhood overweight/obesity; however, to date, findings are not univocal [22,23,24,25,26].
FN is primarily a hereditary trait, in which the genetic determinants account for 78% [27]; however, several socio-environmental factors can influence its development [28,29]. The eating patterns and feeding strategies that parents adopt are strongly associated with the development of FN in children [14,30,31]. During family mealtimes, due to the social facilitation mechanism [32], children can observe and acquire the eating habits of their parents and peers (e.g., siblings) [33,34,35,36].
Parents’ low consumption of fruit and vegetables is strongly associated with the limited consumption of these foods by children [37] because of the transposition of parents’ food preferences on children. The consequences of this attitude could be the children’s restricted experience of learning about various types of food as well as a poor variety of dietary preferences [2,28,38]. Consistently, several studies demonstrated that the mother’s high level of neophobia is correlated with the highest neophobia in children [25,39,40,41,42,43]. Low parent education levels could be one of the causes of low Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD) and the high level of neophobia in children [44,45,46,47]. Moreover, parents’ insufficient nutritional knowledge about what foods are healthy for their children and how to offer them [19] could exacerbate either neophobia or low AMD.
To the best of our knowledge, few studies have evaluated the relationship between FN and AMD in the pediatric population, mostly conducted in Spain [1,48]. For these reasons, the present study aimed to clarify the correlation between FN and AMD in children in an Italian sample. The specific purposes of this work were the analysis of the socio-demographic factors influencing AMD and FN as well as the relationship between AMD and FN and children’s nutritional status.
The basis for the hypothesis of this work was that a high level of FN corresponds to worse AMD. Consequently, the research questions this study would like to answer are as follows: (i) Could FN be a driver of AMD? (ii) what child behavior, either in-line or not-in-line with MD, could be identified as most related to FN? (iii) what aspects characterizing the family influence children’s neophobia?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The present assessment is a cross-sectional study carried out on a sample of children aged 3–11 years. A flow chart visualizing the different phases of the study is presented in Figure 1. The fieldwork lasted 3 months, from 9 March to 11 May 2022. The only inclusion criterion was the class of age. Children’s health status and lifestyle aspects were not used as inclusion/exclusion criteria in consideration of the fact that FN influences food habits and behaviors, nutrient intake, and, in some cases, anthropometric parameters and is less related to other conditions [49,50,51].
The sample size was calculated according to Pourhoseingholi et al. [52] using the following formula: This is example 1 of an equation:
n = [Z2 × P(1 − P)]/[d2]
where n is the sample size, the Z value is 1.96, corresponding to a 95% level of confidence, and P denotes the phenomenon to be measured. In this case, P is the prevalence of FN in children, which was estimated at 25%, according to Predieri et al. [53], and expressed as a decimal. Finally, d is the precision level of 5%, expressed as a decimal. The resulting sample size was 288 subjects.
Most of the sample (227 subjects) resulted from direct data collection carried out by randomly interviewing the selected parents of children attending schools and parks in Rome’s fifth municipality and in the surrounding area. The remaining sample (61 subjects) was obtained through an online administration of the questionnaire distributed through instant messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp) and the social platforms of Instagram and Facebook.

2.2. Data Collection Procedure

Following the European Commission General Data Protection Regulation (679/2016), those willing to participate signed a privacy policy and consent form concerning the collection and processing of socio-demographic data in advance. Before starting the data collection, participants were informed about the objective of the research, the consequent statistical analysis, and the intention to publish the results of the assessment in a scientific journal. Participation in the study was fully voluntary and anonymous, and subjects could withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki [54]. The present research is not considered either medical experimentation or a direct intervention on human subjects with diet changes or formulated food administration and did not involve any invasive procedures. In addition, the Council for Research, Economics, and Agriculture (CREA), which performed the study, is part of the National Statistical System (SISTAN) and guarantees individual data protection [55]. Hence, an additional ethical committee review of the study protocol was considered unnecessary once informed consent was obtained.

2.3. The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed according to the objective of the study and was completed by an adult who acted as a caregiver of the assessed child. It consisted of three sections reported in the Supplementary Material (Table S1). The first section included questions on sociodemographic characteristics (the gender, age, weight, and height of the child, ethnic group of the family, household income, number of workers in the family, and number of children in the family). Weight status identification was based on a Body Mass Index (BMI) comparison with the growth charts of the WHO and their cut-offs [56,57].
The second section investigated FN behavior in children with the Child Food Neophobia Scale (CFNS) developed by Pliner [58] and validated in Italy by Laureati et al. [59]. The CFNS consists of ten items (five referring to neophiliac and five to neophobic attitude) evaluated with a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = “I strongly disagree” to 7 = “I strongly agree”.
The individual CFNS scores were computed according to Predieri et al. [53] as the sum of the scores of the 10 items, reversing the neophiliac items to ensure that the univocal sense of all the responses was obtained. Therefore, the scores theoretically ranged from 10 to 70, with higher scores reflecting higher FN levels. Three groups of individuals were identified according to the following calculation: neutrals (score in the interval mean ± 1SD), neophobic (score > mean + 1SD), and neophiliac (score < mean − 1SD) [20,26,49].
The third section of the questionnaire assessed the AMD in children with the “Mediterranean diet and quality index in children and adolescents KIDMED Test” [60], a questionnaire specifically developed to evaluate if children’s eating habits are based on principles of the MD pattern. The test consists of 16 questions with closed answers (yes or no). The 12 questions denoting attitude in line with the MD principle were assigned a value of +1 (e.g., uses olive oil at home); the 4 questions corresponding to attitude not in line with the MD principle were scored −1 (e.g., skipping breakfast). The KIDMED score ranges from 0 to 12, and the sums of the values from the administered test are classified into three levels of AMD: ≥8 indicates “optimal” AMD; 4–7 points indicate “average” AMD (improvement needed); ≤3 points indicate “very low” AMD.
Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for the combined 26 items of CFNS and KIDMED, resulting in good (α = 0.80) internal consistency and the good reliability of the scale measured [61].

2.4. Statical Analysis

Before starting the statistical analysis, the data set was checked. The data collection was managed by one of the principal investigators of the study without the use of data collectors. Therefore, no incomplete questionnaires, incongruences, typing errors, or outliers were detected, and no elimination of the units was necessary. Descriptive statistics of the data collected were produced. Single continuous variables, assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, were presented as the mean and standard deviation. The other variables were categorized and presented as a percentage (%). A contingency analysis was performed to check the associations between variables. Specifically, double-entry tables were processed, and the Chi-square test of independence was applied, along with post hoc tests to check pairwise comparisons, with Bonferroni corrections of the p-values and the Cramér’s V to estimate its effect size. The test of independence on the mean was applied to compare continuous variables with categorical variables. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s r) was calculated for the comparison between ordinal variables.
Linear regressions were carried out to investigate the relationship between FN, both as a score and as a level, and AMD. To check the effect of potential confounders on this association, linear regressions adjusted for all socio-demographic variables were carried out. The results were considered significant for p-value < 0.05.
Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft® Excel and R version 4.3.2 (updated on 31 October 2023) software.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Sample

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. Females accounted for 42.7% and males 57.3%; a large part of the sample were Caucasians (79.8%), and even a certain level of multi-ethnic origin was observed (12.9% Eurasians, 4.5% Africans, 1.4% Hispanics, and 1.4% Asiatic). Most of the assessed children (71.2%) were aged 6–11 years. Consistently, 65.6% of the sample attended primary school. In most cases, both parents were employed (87.8%). Consistently, the household income for most families ranged between 25,000–40,000 euros (35.8%) and 10,000–25,000 euros (31.6%).
A comparison of BMI with growth charts of the WHO and their cut-offs [56,57] showed that almost half of the sample (44.8%) was of normal weight, while 20.8% and 28.8% of respondents were respectively overweight or obese, and only 5.6% of the population resulted in an underweight score, respectively.

3.2. The Adherence to Mediterranean Diet Assessment (KIDMED Test)

According to the categorization of KIDMED scores, 29.5% of respondents had a low AMD, 54.8% showed an average AMD, and only 15.6% resulted in a high AMD (Figure 2). The inadequate consumption of fruit (<2 servings/day: 61.8%), vegetables (<2 servings/day: 73.3%), legumes (<1 serving/week: 53.8%), nuts (<2/3 servings/week: 74.7%), and fish (<2/3 servings/week: 34.7%) was observed; on the other hand, the excessive consumption of sweets (>1 serving/day: 39.9%) and fast food (>1 time/week: 18.8%) was reported. Among the habits in line with MD, it should be reported that the occurrence of breakfast (88.2%), mainly with dairy products (91.7%) and commercially baked goods and pastries (81.6%), was clear. The consumption of cereals or grain (e.g., bread) for breakfast was less common (18.8%) (Supplementary Materials (Table S2)).
In males, AMD is more common than in females (65.2% vs. 34.8% p-value < 0.05) at a moderate magnitude of the association (Cramer’s V 0.18). The occurrence of having both parents employed was associated with AMD in children (93% vs. 7% p-value < 0.05) at a low/moderate magnitude of the association (Cramer’s V 0.18). Having siblings was associated with AMD (p-value < 0.05) at a moderate magnitude (Cramer’s V 0.13) and with a significant correlation (Spearman’s r 0.10; p-value < 0.05). For the other sociodemographic characteristics, no significant association with AMD was found (age: dependency ratio on average 0.004). Weight status was not significantly associated with AMD; however, higher levels of AMD were found in normal-weight children (42.2%) than in overweight (24.4%) or obese (24.4%) individuals (Table 2).

3.3. Food Neophobia Assessment

The average CFNS score was 42.2 (SD = 14.04), resulting in a large majority of the sample having an intermediate level of FN (67.3%) followed by a high (18.1%) and low (14.6%) level (Figure 3).
Having siblings influenced the occurrence of FN in the sense that among neophiliac children, a lower proportion of those who were an only-child was found with respect to the neophobic counterparts (16.7% vs. 50%; p value < 0.05), confirmed by a moderate Cramer’s V (0.16). This inverse relationship was confirmed by Spearman’s significant correlation (r = −0.21; p-value < 0.05). FN did not show significant associations with socio-demographic variables (age: dependency average of ratio 0.01). The relationship between FN and weight status was also studied, resulting in a significant association. Higher rates of normal weight than overweight/obesity were found among the respondents with lower levels of neophobia (61.9% vs. 38.1%; p value < 0.05). However, even in higher neophobic individuals, about half were normal weight (42.3%) (Table 3). A strong Cramer’s V (0.22) was observed, while a non-significant Spearman’s rank correlation was found.

3.4. The Relationship between Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and Food Neophobia

To test the study hypothesis that a high level of FN could be a driver of poor AMD, the association between these variables was assessed, and significant results were observed (p-value < 0.05). Specifically, almost half of children with a high level of FN (51.9%) showed poor AMD (Table 4). Cramer’s V showed a strong effect size (0.25), and this significant correlation suggested a highly inverse relationship (Spearman’s r = −0.51; p-value < 0.05).
To assess the intake of different food groups in both neophobic and neophiliac children, the association between FN and the items of the KIDMED test was carried out. In lower neophobic children, adequate consumption of fruit (2 servings/day; 76.2%), vegetables (2 servings/day; 66.7%), and legumes (>1 serving/week; 92.9%) was found (p-value < 0.05). Otherwise, in higher neophobic respondents, insufficient consumption of fish (<2–3 servings/week; 48.1%; p-value < 0.05) was observed. On the other hand, neophiliac children were less frequent consumers (<once a week) of fast food than neophobic respondents (97.6% vs. 75%; p value < 0.05). Having breakfast did not show a significant association with FN in almost all both neophiliac (95.2%) and neophobic (80.8%) children who did not skip breakfast. Concerning food choices, the consumption of milk and commercially baked goods and pastries was not related to FN; instead, consuming cereals/grains for breakfast was higher, even nonsignificant, in participants with a low level of FN than in those with a high level (31% vs. 11.5%) (Table 4).
Among higher neophobic children, the lowest daily fruit and vegetable (F and V) consumption frequencies were observed. In particular, 80.4% of the children with an intermediate level of FN and 65.4% with a high level of FN consumed one fruit or fruit juice every day. The consumption of two servings per day was reported by 35% of children with intermediate FN and 21.5% of children with a high FN. Similarly, 68% of the children with an intermediate level of FN and 46.1% with a high level of FN consumed fresh or cooked vegetables once a day. These percentages were reduced to 22.7% and 9.6% for two servings per day, respectively. A decreasing trend of weekly fish and legume consumption between the different FN levels was also observed: among higher neophobic children, only 19.2% and 51.9% consumed were, respectively, legumes more than once a week and fish at least 2–3 times per week, contrary to 92.9% and 71.4%, respectively, for legume and fish consumption in their neophiliac counterparts, showing an adequate intake (Figure 4). The strongest effect sizes were found for legumes (Cramer’s V 0.43) with two servings of vegetables (Cramer’s V 0.39) and fruits (Cramer’s V 0.34).
Linear regressions were carried out to investigate the relationship between FN and AMD (Table 5). A significant regressor was found (β = −0.09; p-value < 0.05), meaning that the increase in the FN score corresponded to a decrease in the ADM score. Thus, a medium–high ADM was estimated for respondents with a low FN level (ADM score 6.9; p-value < 0.05), a medium–low ADM for respondents with a medium FN level (ADM score 4.9; p-value < 0.05) and a low ADM for respondents with a high FN level (ADM score 3.5; p-value < 0.05).
The linear regressions between FN and AMD, adjusted for all socio-demographic variables, confirmed the above-reported significant association (Table 6 and Table 7). A significant regressor for the FN score was found (β = −0.09; p-value < 0.05), and the low FN levels corresponded to high ADM (Low FN, ADM score = 7.1; medium FN, ADM score = 4.9; high FN, ADM score = 3.7).

4. Discussion

The present work clarifies the relationship between FN and AMD in a sample of Italian children and describes the association between some sociodemographic factors and children’s nutritional status.
The key finding in the current study highlights that a high level of FN significantly influences the lack of AMD in the assessed sample of Italian children. Notably, more than half of children with elevated FN demonstrated a low AMD. The inverse association between FN and AMD was also confirmed after adjusting for potential confounders. The negative correlation between FN and AMD was reported in other studies carried out in the pediatric population [1,48] as well as in adults [53]. The FN in the present study was a significant barrier to a balanced and healthy diet, and neophobic children resulted in a diet with lower nutritional quality than non-neophobic children.
FN was largely diffused in the present sample since more than half of the respondents showed an intermediate level of FN (67.3%), followed by a high level (18.1%), confirming the rates observed in other Italian studies [24,26,62]. Children exhibiting a high level of FN are hesitant to experiment with a variety of foods, especially those they are unfamiliar with [63]. In the present sample, this resulted in children with a limited eating variety and a dietary behavior far from the principles of MD that could have detrimental effects on future overall health and well-being. Conversely, children who were assessed as less neophobic resulted in general behaviors that were more in line with MD principles.
Foods commonly refused by neophobic children are fruit, vegetables, legumes, and fish, typical of the MD [1]; on the other hand, the Western Diet is characterized by foods such as highly palatable, ultra-processed foods, rich in salt and sugar and refined grains [12] are preferred by neophobic children [19,20,21]. Consequently, FN could be one of the many factors contributing to the shift toward a Western dietary pattern. In suboptimal children, AMD was measured in this study (54.8% average and 29.5% very low), confirming trends of reducing AMD in evolutive ages in Mediterranean areas as resulting in the meta-analysis conducted by Garcia-Cabrera et al. [15] (27% of low AMD among youths ≤ 12 years old).
The observed levels of AMD were related to two socio-demographic variables, namely gender and the level of parental employment. Contrary to other studies [15,47], in this sample, males followed more MD than females. Instead, a higher parental level of employment resulted in a negative factor for AMD as it was associated with higher rates of neophobia in children (93% vs. 80%).
A more detailed examination of the data showed that a large proportion of the respondents did not achieve the recommendations for the consumption of fruit (61.8%), vegetables (73.3%), cereals or grains for breakfast (81.2%), legumes (53.8%) and fish (34.7%) and these included mainly children with an intermediate or high level of FN. Furthermore, F and V, legumes, and fish consumption frequencies tended to decrease as the level of FN worsened. Overall, FN seems to influence vegetable consumption more negatively than fruits. The sweet taste of fruit compared to the bitter taste of some vegetables could justify the difference found in this finding. However, the difference between fruit and vegetable consumption could be minor, considering that the KIDMED item on fruit consumption also refers to fruit juices, normally preferred by children [64].
Regarding more palatable foods, the consumption of commercially baked goods and pastries for breakfast (81.6%), sweets (39.9%), and fast food (18.8%) was frequent, especially among children with an intermediate or high level of FN. These findings are consistent with those obtained in studies conducted in other Mediterranean Countries that recognize FN as a driver behind the abandonment of the MD [1,48]. On the other hand, the unhealthy home food environment and low parent AMD could also be a predictor of maintenance of FN in children.
An interesting result that deserves attention is related to the fact that having siblings influences the occurrence of FN, with a lower percentage of those who are the old child being among neophiliac children compared to their neophobic counterparts (16.7% vs. 50%) probably due to the influence of peers on children’s eating habits [48,65,66].
The literature describes a peak of FN between 2 and 6 years of age with a decrease over this age [2,4,67]; in the present study, however, a high prevalence of FN was found in 6–11-year-old children (63.9% of them with an intermediate level of FN). These results indicate the persistence of neophobic behavior during the child’s growth and the possibility of its maintenance in adulthood, as also observed in a recent study on Brazilian children [68]. The adoption of coercive feeding strategies (e.g., pressure to eat, using food as a reward) could be one of the causes of FN persistence [30,31,50,69,70,71], considering that forcing attitude could have not only an immediate positive impact but a long-term negative effect on the development of preferences for healthy foods [72,73]. The prevalence of FN in adulthood in Italy has been confirmed by another study [53] that showed a strong negative association between FN and AMD and suggested that it could be a predictor of adopting an unhealthy dietary pattern and greater metabolic risk. It is widely documented that FN limits the dietary variety and quality as it results in the rejection of healthy foods, both plants (e.g., fruit, vegetables, pulses) and animals (e.g., fish), and the preference for more palatable and high-calorie foods [19]. Considering these premises, it has been hypothesized that FN may contribute to childhood obesity [22].
The present results did not confirm the association between FN and childhood obesity. In fact, among the less neophobic children, a significantly higher percentage of normal weight was observed compared to overweight/obesity (61.9% vs. 38.1%). However, even in higher neophobic respondents, about half were normal weight (42.3%). The relationship between FN and weight status is an open question, as it has been examined in a few studies that have produced conflicting results. Most of these found no association between the variables [23,24,26,74,75], while a smaller number found a positive relationship in the sense that neophobic children tend to be more overweight/obese [25,40]. Further research is needed to clarify this association, but we can speculate that it depends on the home food environment and the feeding practices adopted by parents: the abundance of calory-dense foods, rich in sugars or saturated fatty acids, and offering them to compensate for the rejection of healthy ones, could favor the development of overweight/obesity in neophobic children.
The strengths and limitations of this study are outlined below. An important strength of this study is the fact that it addresses a research gap in Italy in which limited comprehensive assessments simultaneously investigate both FN and children’s AMD. Understanding the interplay between FN and AMD is essential for promoting healthy eating habits among Italian children. Research in this area could reveal strategies to encourage a more balanced and nutritious diet in children, potentially reducing the impact of FN on their food choices. Another strength is the use of validated and largely employed questionnaires, including the KIDMED test [60] and the Neophobia scale [58], that have been designed to yield consistent and reproducible results. This allowed us to place these findings in a broader context and make meaningful comparisons to existing research, enhancing this study’s significance. Another strength of this work was that the sample size calculation fixed the level of precision of estimations, ensuring the detection of meaningful effects and differences and optimizing efforts and resources when considering the difficulties of data collection in studies with children as the target group. This led to more robust statistical tests and analyses, increasing this study’s ability to detect significant effects and relationships, minimizing the risk of unnecessarily involving participants, and collecting data that might not contribute significantly to the study’s objectives.
This study has limitations. A significant weakness of this research lies in its cross-sectional examination of FN’s association with AMD, as well as the consumption of specific foods like fruits, vegetables, and weight outcomes. Consequently, the study design did not permit a causal relationship to be established. Nonetheless, the findings offer valuable groundwork for future investigations, which should explore the causal connections between neophobia and diet quality during the later stages of childhood. Another important limitation of this study is related to the fact that the assessment relied on respondent’s answers to the questionnaire. This methodology has the intrinsic limitation of the response bias consisting of the fact that respondents may provide inaccurate or socially desirable responses. Dietary intake evaluation is particularly influenced by social desirability bias with a tendency to provide consistent responses, which can potentially lead to less precise representations of actual food consumption [23]. In addition, this study relied on adults’ assessments of neophobic behaviors that could be interpreted differently. All these aspects were partially overcome with the use of largely validated questionnaires. Another limitation of this study is related to the fact that the sample includes medium and high socioeconomic groups, limiting the generalizability of results to the broader population, which is not an objective of the present study. Another limitation of this study could be seen in the sample resulting from a combination of online and face-to-face interviews. However, these mixed methodologies were more and more common in the research with the use of questionnaires [76]. The online systems have the advantage of wider access to participants. Nevertheless, in the present study, the online system resulted in a limited capacity to reach the target; hence, the decision to switch to face-to-face interviews had the advantage of creating a link with the respondents and facilitating their willingness to answer. The reasons for the preference for the direct approach in this study were probably related to the target, which was mothers with young children with limited time to dedicate to online instruments. The decision to mix the methodologies was based on the reported equivalence between the two systems and in consideration of the fact that offering both online and face-to-face interviews places the respondents in the best situation, allowing them to select the most convenient option [77].

5. Conclusions

This study confirms the widespread prevalence of FN in the pediatric age in Italy, especially in an only child. Contrary to several studies describing a peak of FN between 2 and 6 years of age, present results also showed the maintenance of neophobic behavior in older children. Confirming the study hypothesis, FN is a driver of low AMD, negatively influencing the consumption of typical foods of MD such as fruit, vegetables, legumes, and nuts and contributing to the high intake of sweets and fast food, characteristic of Western dietary patterns. An inadequate home food environment, unhealthy parents’ eating habits, and the adoption of ineffective feeding strategies could cause the maintenance of FN observed, predisposing to the occurrence of NCDs in adulthood. FN is a significant barrier to achieving a balanced and healthy diet, particularly among children. Neophobic children are at risk of consuming a diet with lower nutritional quality, which could impact their health and development. Encouraging neophobic individuals, especially children, to gradually expand their food choices can be a crucial step in promoting better dietary habits and overall well-being [78].
Future research should expand the utilization of the questionnaires for FN and AMD measurements in other settings and for different purposes. School canteens could be a very interesting area of analysis for FN and AMD in consideration of the high level of food waste reported in the Italian school feeding system [79]. The estimation of the level of FN in these students could be used as background information to interpret the reason for the waste. Food Neophobia Scale and the KIDMED test could be used as evaluative tools to measure the impact of nutrition education programs measuring different aspects of food behaviors. The evaluation of FN could be suitable to identify if there is a relevant proportion of children with extreme neophobic attitudes that limit the impact of educational interventions and need targeted actions. AMD could be used as a measure of behavioral changes and the outcomes of nutrition education programs.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu15245078/s1, Table S1: The questionnaire; Table S2: Results of the KIDMED test.

Author Contributions

S.P., U.S. and L.R. carried out the research questions, conceptualization, and design of the study. L.R. revised the methodology. A.D.N. and S.P. carried out the database compilation and data analysis. A.D.N. carried out the manuscript writing and original draft preparation. L.R. and U.S. did the writing, review, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The investigation was carried out following the rules of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/, accessed on 29 September 2023) revised in 2013. The ethical review and approval were waived for this study because it did not involve any invasive procedure (e.g., fecal samples, voided urine, etc.), laboratory assessment, induced lifestyle changes, or dietary intake modifications.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The archived data and all the elaboration and analysis generated and used for the presentation of results in this study are fully available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the participants in the study who provided time for interviews. With their collaborative attitude, the respondents supported the fieldwork and contributed to the provision of high-quality results. The support of Jacopo Niccolò di Veroli who revised and performed the statistical analysis was fundamental.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rodríguez-Tadeo, A.; Patiño-Villena, B.; González-Martínez-La-Cuesta, E.; Urquídez-Romero, R.; Ros-Berruezo, G. Food Neophobia, Mediterranean Diet Adherence and Acceptance of Healthy Foods Prepared in Gastronomic Workshops by Spanish Students. Nutr. Hosp. 2018, 35, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Dovey, T.M.; Staples, P.A.; Gibson, E.L.; Halford, J.C.G. Food Neophobia and ‘Picky/Fussy’ Eating in Children: A Review. Appetite 2008, 50, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Karaağaç, Y.; Bellikci-Koyu, E. A Narrative Review on Food Neophobia throughout the Lifespan: Relationships with Dietary Behaviours and Interventions to Reduce It. Br. J. Nutr. 2023, 130, 793–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cole, N.C.; An, R.; Lee, S.-Y.; Donovan, S.M. Correlates of Picky Eating and Food Neophobia in Young Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutr. Rev. 2017, 75, 516–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Jaeger, S.R.; Prescott, J.; Worch, T. Food Neophobia Modulates Importance of Food Choice Motives: Replication, Extension, and Behavioural Validation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 97, 104439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Agnoli, C.; Krogh, V.; Grioni, S.; Sieri, S.; Palli, D.; Masala, G.; Sacerdote, C.; Vineis, P.; Tumino, R.; Frasca, G.; et al. A Priori-Defined Dietary Patterns Are Associated with Reduced Risk of Stroke in a Large Italian Cohort. J. Nutr. 2011, 141, 1552–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Grosso, G.; Mistretta, A.; Frigiola, A.; Gruttadauria, S.; Biondi, A.; Basile, F.; Vitaglione, P.; D’Orazio, N.; Galvano, F. Mediterranean Diet and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Systematic Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 54, 593–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sofi, F.; Abbate, R.; Gensini, G.F.; Casini, A. Accruing Evidence on Benefits of Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet on Health: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 92, 1189–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Trichopoulou, A.; Martínez-González, M.A.; Tong, T.Y.; Forouhi, N.G.; Khandelwal, S.; Prabhakaran, D.; Mozaffarian, D.; de Lorgeril, M. Definitions and Potential Health Benefits of the Mediterranean Diet: Views from Experts around the World. BMC Med. 2014, 12, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eleftheriou, D.; Benetou, V.; Trichopoulou, A.; Vecchia, C.L.; Bamia, C. Mediterranean Diet and Its Components in Relation to All-Cause Mortality: Meta-Analysis. Brit. J. Nutr. 2018, 120, 1081–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sánchez-Sánchez, M.L.; García-Vigara, A.; Hidalgo-Mora, J.J.; García-Pérez, M.-Á.; Tarín, J.; Cano, A. Mediterranean Diet and Health: A Systematic Review of Epidemiological Studies and Intervention Trials. Maturitas 2020, 136, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Azzam, A. Is the World Converging to a ‘Western Diet’? Public Health Nutr. 2021, 24, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Montaño, Z.; Smith, J.D.; Dishion, T.J.; Shaw, D.S.; Wilson, M.N. Longitudinal Relations between Observed Parenting Behaviors and Dietary Quality of Meals from Ages 2 to 5. Appetite 2015, 87, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Torres, T.d.O.; Gomes, D.R.; Mattos, M.P. Factors associated with food neophobia in children: Systematic review. Rev. Paul. Pediatr. 2021, 39, e2020089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cabrera, S.G.; Fernández, N.H.; Hernández, C.R.; Nissensohn, M.; Román-Viñas, B.; Serra-Majem, L. Kidmed test; prevalence of low adherence to the mediterranean diet in children and young; A Systematic Review. Nutr. Hosp. 2015, 32, 2390–2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vilarnau, C.; Stracker, D.M.; Funtikov, A.; da Silva, R.; Estruch, R.; Bach-Faig, A. Worldwide Adherence to Mediterranean Diet between 1960 and 2011. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 72, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. EpiCentro. Indagine Nazionale 2019: I Dati Nazionali. Available online: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/okkioallasalute/indagine-2019-dati (accessed on 29 July 2022).
  18. Roccaldo, R.; Censi, L.; D’Addezio, L.; Toti, E.; Martone, D.; D’Addesa, D.; Cernigliaro, A. ZOOM8 Study group Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet in Italian School Children (The ZOOM8 Study). Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 65, 621–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Russell, C.G.; Worsley, A. A Population-Based Study of Preschoolers’ Food Neophobia and Its Associations with Food Preferences. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2008, 40, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Falciglia, G.A.; Couch, S.C.; Gribble, L.S.; Pabst, S.M.; Frank, R. Food Neophobia in Childhood Affects Dietary Variety. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2000, 100, 1474–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. dos Anjos, L.A.; Vieira, D.A.d.S.; Siqueira, B.N.F.; Voci, S.M.; Botelho, A.J.; da Silva, D.G. Low Adherence to Traditional Dietary Pattern and Food Preferences of Low-Income Preschool Children with Food Neophobia. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 24, 2859–2866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brown, C.L.; Schaaf, E.B.V.; Cohen, G.M.; Irby, M.B.; Skelton, J.A. Association of Picky Eating and Food Neophobia with Weight: A Systematic Review. Child. Obes. 2016, 12, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Perry, R.A.; Mallan, K.M.; Koo, J.; Mauch, C.E.; Daniels, L.A.; Magarey, A.M. Food Neophobia and Its Association with Diet Quality and Weight in Children Aged 24 Months: A Cross Sectional Study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Laureati, M.; Bertoli, S.; Bergamaschi, V.; Leone, A.; Lewandowski, L.; Giussani, B.; Battezzati, A.; Pagliarini, E. Food Neophobia and Liking for Fruits and Vegetables Are Not Related to Italian Children’s Overweight. Food Qual. Pref. 2015, 40, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Finistrella, V.; Manco, M.; Ferrara, A.; Rustico, C.; Presaghi, F.; Morino, G. Cross-Sectional Exploration of Maternal Reports of Food Neophobia and Pickiness in Preschooler-Mother Dyads. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2012, 31, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Di Nucci, A.; Scognamiglio, U.; Grant, F.; Rossi, L. The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Habits and Neophobia in Children in the Framework of the Family Context and Parents’ Behaviors: A Study in an Italian Central Region. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 1070388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cooke, L.J.; Haworth, C.M.; Wardle, J. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Children’s Food Neophobia. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 86, 428–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Lafraire, J.; Rioux, C.; Giboreau, A.; Picard, D. Food Rejections in Children: Cognitive and Social/Environmental Factors Involved in Food Neophobia and Picky/Fussy Eating Behavior. Appetite 2016, 96, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kutbi, H.A.; Alhatmi, A.A.; Alsulami, M.H.; Alghamdi, S.S.; Albagar, S.M.; Mumena, W.A.; Mosli, R.H. Food Neophobia and Pickiness among Children and Associations with Socioenvironmental and Cognitive Factors. Appetite 2019, 142, 104373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kaar, J.L.; Shapiro, A.L.B.; Fell, D.M.; Johnson, S.L. Parental Feeding Practices, Food Neophobia, and Child Food Preferences: What Combination of Factors Results in Children Eating a Variety of Foods? Food Qual. Pref. 2016, 50, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wolstenholme, H.; Kelly, C.; Hennessy, M.; Heary, C. Childhood Fussy/Picky Eating Behaviours: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Clayton, D.A. Socially Facilitated Behavior. Quart. Rev. Biol. 1978, 53, 373–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lumeng, J.C.; Cardinal, T.M.; Jankowski, M.; Kaciroti, N.; Gelman, S.A. Children’s Use of Adult Testimony to Guide Food Selection. Appetite 2008, 51, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Litterbach, E.V.; Campbell, K.J.; Spence, A.C. Family Meals with Young Children: An Online Study of Family Mealtime Characteristics, among Australian Families with Children Aged Six Months to Six Years. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sharps, M.A.; Coulthard, H.; Salvy, S.J.; Ryan, S.; Fallon, V. The Influence of Experimental Confederate Peers on Children’s Food Intake: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Appetite 2022, 169, 105863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Goldman, R.L.; Radnitz, C.L.; McGrath, R.E. The Role of Family Variables in Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Pre-School Children. J. Public Health Res. 2012, 1, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Howard, A.J.; Mallan, K.M.; Byrne, R.; Magarey, A.; Daniels, L.A. Toddlers’ Food Preferences. The Impact of Novel Food Exposure, Maternal Preferences and Food Neophobia. Appetite 2012, 59, 818–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kral, T.V.E.; Rauh, E.M. Eating Behaviors of Children in the Context of Their Family Environment. Physiol. Behav. 2010, 100, 567–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Faith, M.S.; Heo, M.; Keller, K.L.; Pietrobelli, A. Child Food Neophobia Is Heritable, Associated with Less Compliant Eating, and Moderates Familial Resemblance for BMI. Obesity 2013, 21, 1650–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yong, C.; Kuang, X.; Liu, Y.; Xiang, C.; Xi, Y.; Huo, J.; Liang, J.; Zou, H.; Lin, Q. Parental Food Neophobia, Feeding Practices, and Preschooler’s Food Neophobia: A Cross-Sectional Study in China. Appetite 2023, 185, 106547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Marlow, C.S.; Forestell, C.A. The Effect of Parental Food Neophobia on Children’s Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: A Serial Mediation Model. Appetite 2022, 172, 105942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hazley, D.; Stack, M.; Walton, J.; McNulty, B.A.; Kearney, J.M. Food Neophobia across the Life Course: Pooling Data from Five National Cross-Sectional Surveys in Ireland. Appetite 2022, 171, 105941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kähkönen, K.; Rönkä, A.; Hujo, M.; Lyytikäinen, A.; Nuutinen, O. Sensory-Based Food Education in Early Childhood Education and Care, Willingness to Choose and Eat Fruit and Vegetables, and the Moderating Role of Maternal Education and Food Neophobia. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 2443–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Scaglioni, S.; De Cosmi, V.; Ciappolino, V.; Parazzini, F.; Brambilla, P.; Agostoni, C. Factors Influencing Children’s Eating Behaviours. Nutrients 2018, 10, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wen, X.; Kong, K.L.; Eiden, R.D.; Sharma, N.N.; Xie, C. Sociodemographic Differences and Infant Dietary Patterns. Pediatrics 2014, 134, e1387–e1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Idelson, P.I.; Scalfi, L.; Valerio, G. Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2017, 27, 283–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Maiz, E.; Balluerka, N. Nutritional Status and Mediterranean Diet Quality among Spanish Children and Adolescents with Food Neophobia. Food Qual. Pref. 2016, 52, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kozioł-Kozakowska, A.; Piórecka, B.; Schlegel-Zawadzka, M. Prevalence of Food Neophobia in Pre-School Children from Southern Poland and Its Association with Eating Habits, Dietary Intake and Anthropometric Parameters: A Cross-Sectional Study. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 1106–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Kutbi, H.A.; Asiri, R.M.; Alghamdi, M.A.; Albassami, M.Z.; Mosli, R.H.; Mumena, W.A. Food Neophobia and Its Association with Nutrient Intake among Saudi Children. Food Qual. Pref. 2022, 96, 104372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Białek-Dratwa, A.; Kowalski, O. Prevalence of Feeding Problems in Children and Associated Factors—A Cross-Sectional Study among Polish Children Aged 2–7 Years. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pourhoseingholi, M.A.; Vahedi, M.; Rahimzadeh, M. Sample Size Calculation in Medical Studies. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Bed. Bench. 2013, 6, 14–17. [Google Scholar]
  53. Predieri, S.; Sinesio, F.; Monteleone, E.; Spinelli, S.; Cianciabella, M.; Daniele, G.M.; Dinnella, C.; Gasperi, F.; Endrizzi, I.; Torri, L.; et al. Gender, Age, Geographical Area, Food Neophobia and Their Relationships with the Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet: New Insights from a Large Population Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Human, D.; Fluss, S.S. The World Medical Association-Declaration of Helsinki; World Medical Association: Ferney-Voltaire, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sette, S.; Le Donne, C.; Piccinelli, R.; Arcella, D.; Turrini, A.; Leclercq, C. The Third Italian National Food Consumption Survey, INRAN-SCAI 2005–06—Part 1: Nutrient Intakes in Italy. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2011, 21, 922–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO Child Growth Standards Based on Length/Height, Weight and Age. Acta Paediatr. Suppl. 2006, 450, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. de Onis, M. Development of a WHO Growth Reference for School-Aged Children and Adolescents. Bull World Health Organ. 2007, 85, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Pliner, P. Development of Measures of Food Neophobia in Children. Appetite 1994, 23, 147–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Laureati, M.; Spinelli, S.; Monteleone, E.; Dinnella, C.; Prescott, J.; Cattaneo, C.; Proserpio, C.; De Toffoli, A.; Gasperi, F.; Endrizzi, I.; et al. Associations between Food Neophobia and Responsiveness to “Warning” Chemosensory Sensations in Food Products in a Large Population Sample. Food Qual. Pref. 2018, 68, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Serra-Majem, L.; Ribas, L.; Ngo, J.; Ortega, R.M.; García, A.; Pérez-Rodrigo, C.; Aranceta, J. Food, Youth and the Mediterranean Diet in Spain. Development of KIDMED, Mediterranean Diet Quality Index in Children and Adolescents. Public Health Nutr. 2004, 7, 931–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hinton, P.; McMurray, I.; Brownlow, C. SPSS Explained; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; ISBN 978-0-203-64259-7. [Google Scholar]
  62. Laureati, M.; Cattaneo, C.; Bergamaschi, V.; Proserpio, C.; Pagliarini, E. School Children Preferences for Fish Formulations: The Impact of Child and Parental Food Neophobia. J. Sens. Stud. 2016, 31, 408–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Białek-Dratwa, A.; Szczepańska, E.; Szymańska, D.; Grajek, M.; Krupa-Kotara, K.; Kowalski, O. Neophobia—A Natural Developmental Stage or Feeding Difficulties for Children? Nutrients 2022, 14, 1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Heyman, M.B.; Abrams, S.A.; Section on Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition; Committee on Nutrition; Heitlinger, L.A.; Cabana, M.D.; Gilger, M.A.; Gugig, R.; Hill, I.D.; Lightdale, J.R.; et al. Fruit juice in infants, children, and adolescents: Current Recommendations. Pediatrics 2017, 139, e20170967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Salvy, S.-J.; Kieffer, E.; Epstein, L.H. Effects of Social Context on Overweight and Normal-Weight Children’s Food Selection. Eat. Behav. 2008, 9, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ragelienė, T.; Grønhøj, A. The Influence of Peers’ and Siblings’ on Children’s and Adolescents’ Healthy Eating Behavior. A Systematic Literature Review. Appetite 2020, 148, 104592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Łoboś, P.; Januszewicz, A. Food Neophobia in Children. Pediatr. Endocrinol. Diabetes Metab. 2019, 25, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. de Almeida, P.C.; Vasconcelos, I.A.L.; Zandonadi, R.P.; Nakano, E.Y.; Raposo, A.; Han, H.; Araya-Castillo, L.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Botelho, R.B.A. Food Neophobia among Brazilian Children: Prevalence and Questionnaire Score Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cassells, E.L.; Magarey, A.M.; Daniels, L.A.; Mallan, K.M. The Influence of Maternal Infant Feeding Practices and Beliefs on the Expression of Food Neophobia in Toddlers. Appetite 2014, 82, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Moding, K.J.; Stifter, C.A. Temperamental Approach/Withdrawal and Food Neophobia in Early Childhood: Concurrent and Longitudinal Associations. Appetite 2016, 107, 654–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cooke, L.J.; Chambers, L.C.; Añez, E.V.; Wardle, J. Facilitating or Undermining? The Effect of Reward on Food Acceptance. A Narrative Review. Appetite 2011, 57, 493–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bante, H.; Elliott, M.; Harrod, A.; Haire-Joshu, D. The Use of Inappropriate Feeding Practices by Rural Parents and Their Effect on Preschoolers’ Fruit and Vegetable Preferences and Intake. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2008, 40, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Galloway, A.T.; Fiorito, L.M.; Francis, L.A.; Birch, L.L. “Finish Your Soup”: Counterproductive Effects of Pressuring Children to Eat on Intake and Affect. Appetite 2006, 46, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tan, C.C.; Holub, S.C. Maternal Feeding Practices Associated with Food Neophobia. Appetite 2012, 59, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Johnson, S.L.; Davies, P.L.; Boles, R.E.; Gavin, W.J.; Bellows, L.L. Young Children’s Food Neophobia Characteristics and Sensory Behaviors Are Related to Their Food Intake. J. Nutr. 2015, 145, 2610–2616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Saarijärvi, M.; Bratt, E.-L. When Face-to-Face Interviews Are Not Possible: Tips and Tricks for Video, Telephone, Online Chat, and Email Interviews in Qualitative Research. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2021, 20, 392–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Peasgood, T.; Bourke, M.; Devlin, N.; Rowen, D.; Yang, Y.; Dalziel, K. Randomised Comparison of Online Interviews versus Face-to-Face Interviews to Value Health States. Soc. Sci. Med. 2023, 323, 115818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Sarin, H.V.; Taba, N.; Fischer, K.; Esko, T.; Kanerva, N.; Moilanen, L.; Saltevo, J.; Joensuu, A.; Borodulin, K.; Männistö, S.; et al. Food Neophobia Associates with Poorer Dietary Quality, Metabolic Risk Factors, and Increased Disease Outcome Risk in Population-Based Cohorts in a Metabolomics Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 110, 233–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rossi, L.; Ferrari, M.; Martone, D.; Benvenuti, L.; De Santis, A. The Promotions of Sustainable Lunch Meals in School Feeding Programs: The Case of Italy. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nutrients 15 05078 g001
Figure 1. Study phase description in sequential order.
Figure 1. Study phase description in sequential order.
Nutrients 15 05078 g001
Nutrients 15 05078 g002
Figure 2. Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD) in the total sample for males and females.
Figure 2. Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD) in the total sample for males and females.
Nutrients 15 05078 g002
Nutrients 15 05078 g003
Figure 3. Level of Food Neophobia (FN) in the total sample for both males and females.
Figure 3. Level of Food Neophobia (FN) in the total sample for both males and females.
Nutrients 15 05078 g003
Nutrients 15 05078 g004
Figure 4. Fruit, vegetables, legumes, and fish consumption at different Food Neophobia (FN) levels.
Figure 4. Fruit, vegetables, legumes, and fish consumption at different Food Neophobia (FN) levels.
Nutrients 15 05078 g004
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample (n = 288).
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample (n = 288).
N(%)
Gender
Females12342.7
Males16557.3
Age
3–5 years8328.8
6–11 years20571.2
Ethnic group
African134.5
Asiatic41.4
Caucasian22979.8
Eurasian3712.9
Hispanic41.4
Parents employment
Both parents employed25387.8
≤1 parent employed3512.2
Household income
Up to 10,000 euros269
Between 10,001 and 25,000 euros9131.6
Between 25,001 and 40,000 euros10335.8
Between 40,001 and more6823.6
Children per family
110837.5
214550.3
≥23512.2
Body Mass Index (BMI)
Underweight165.6
Normal weight12944.8
Overweight6020.8
Obesity8328.8
Table 2. Association between sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, Body Mass Index (BMI) categories according to [56,57], and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD) resulting from the KIDMED test * p < 0.05.
Table 2. Association between sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, Body Mass Index (BMI) categories according to [56,57], and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD) resulting from the KIDMED test * p < 0.05.
AMD LevelsVery Low (≤3)Average (4–7)Optimal (≥8)
n%n%n%
Sociodemographic characteristics and BMI
GenderMales4249.4103 *65.22044.4
Females4350.65534.82555.5
Household income<10,000 EUR910.6116.9613.3
10,000–25,000 EUR2832.94629.11737.8
25,000–40,000 EUR3035.36239.21124.4
>40,000 EUR1821.23924.71124.4
Parents employmentBoth parents employed6880147 *933884.4
≤1 parent employed1720117715.6
Children per family13541.26541.1817.8
24047.17346.232 *71.1
>21011.82010.8511.1
Ethnic groupAfrican11.295.736.7
Asiatic22.310.612.2
Caucasian6981.212982.23168.9
Eurasian11131610.21022.2
Hispanic22.321.300
BMIUnderweight33.595.748.9
Normal weight4249.468431942.2
Overweight9204025.31124.4
Obesity3136.541261124.4
Table 3. Association between sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, Body Mass Index (BMI) categories according to [56,57], and level of Food Neophobia (FN) resulting from the Child Food Neophobia Scale (CFNS) * p < 0.05.
Table 3. Association between sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, Body Mass Index (BMI) categories according to [56,57], and level of Food Neophobia (FN) resulting from the Child Food Neophobia Scale (CFNS) * p < 0.05.
FN LevelsLowMediumHigh
n%N%n%
Socio-demographic characteristics and BMI
GenderMales2252.411358.23057.7
Females2047.68141.82242.3
Household income<10,000EUR24.8199.859.6
10,000–25,000 EUR8196734.51630.8
25,000–40,000 EUR1842.86835.11732.7
>40,000 EUR1433.34020.61426.9
Parents employmentBoth parents employed4095.217087.64382.7
≤1 parent employed24.82412.4917.3
Children per family17 *16.77538.72650
22559.59850.52242.3
>21023.82110.847.7
Ethnic groupAfrican24.8105.211.9
Asiatic0042.100
Caucasian3480.915379.34280.8
Eurasian614.32211.4917.3
Hispanic0042.100
BMIUnderweight00126.247.7
Normal weight2661.98141.82242.3
Overweight1638.13618.5815.4
Obesity0 *06533.51834.6
Table 4. Association between Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (KIDMED total score and component scores) and Food Neophobia (FN) * p < 0.05.
Table 4. Association between Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (KIDMED total score and component scores) and Food Neophobia (FN) * p < 0.05.
FN LevelsLowMediumHigh
N%n%n%
KIDMED total scoreVery low12.45729.427 *51.9
Average2661.910956.22344.2
Optimal1535.72814.423.8
KIDMED test components
Fruit or fruit juice every dayYes3992.915680.43465.4
No37.13819.618 *34.6
Second fruit every dayYes32 *76.26734.51121.2
No1023.812765.54178.8
Fresh or cooked vegetables regularly once a dayYes40 *95.2132682446.2
No24.862322853.8
Fresh or cooked vegetables more than once a dayYes28 *66.74422.759.6
No1433.315077.34790.4
Fish at least 2–3 times per weekYes3071.413167.52751.9
No1228.66332.525 *48.1
Fast-food more than
once a week		Yes12.44020.61325
No41*97.615479.43975
Legumes more than
once a week		Yes39 *92.98443.31019.2
No37.111056.74280.8
Cereals or grains (bread, etc.) for breakfastYes13313518611.5
No2969159824688.5
Nuts at least 2–3 times
per week		Yes716.75628.91019.2
No3583.313871.14280.8
Skips breakfastYes24.82211.31019.2
No4095.217288.74280.8
Dairy products for breakfast (yogurt, milk, etc.)Yes4095.218092.84484.6
No24.8147.2815.4
Commercially baked goods or pastries for breakfastYes3685.715680.44382.7
No614.33819.6917.3
Sweets and candy several times every dayYes1126.27940.72548.1
No3173.811559.32751.9
Table 5. Linear model between Food Neophobia (FN) and Adherence to Mediterranean Diet (AMD).
Table 5. Linear model between Food Neophobia (FN) and Adherence to Mediterranean Diet (AMD).
VariableCategoryEstimationp-Value
FN
Continuous score		Intercept8.610.000
β−0.090.000
FN
levels		Low6.930.000
Medium4.920.000
High3.540.000
Table 6. Complete linear model between all variables (sociodemographic information and Food Neophobia score FN) and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD).
Table 6. Complete linear model between all variables (sociodemographic information and Food Neophobia score FN) and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD).
VariableCategoryEstimationp-Value
Intercept9.850.000
FN continuous scoreΒ−0.090.000
GenderMales0.220.390
Household income10,000–25,000 EUR−0.520.447
25,000–40,000 EUR−1.250.080
>40,000 EUR−0.820.269
Parents employmentBoth parents employed1.400.025
Children per family20.420.143
>2−0.390.378
Ethnic groupAsiatic−0.200.864
Caucasian−1.270.049
Eurasian−0.920.188
Hispanic−2.740.026
Body Mass Index (BMI)Normal weight−0.970.075
Overweight−0.670.249
Obesity−0.630.279
Table 7. Complete linear model between all sociodemographic variables and Food Neophobia levels (FN) and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD).
Table 7. Complete linear model between all sociodemographic variables and Food Neophobia levels (FN) and Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet (AMD).
VariableCategoryEstimationp-Value
FN levelsLow7.100.000
Medium4.940.000
High3.690.000
GenderMales0.220.418
Household income10,000–25,000 EUR−0.790.150
25,000–40,000 EUR0.380.345
>40,000 EUR0.340.212
Parents employmentBoth parents employed1.430.032
Children per family2−0.100.759
>2−0.440.076
Ethnic groupAsiatic−0.420.739
Caucasian−1.290.062
Eurasian−0.950.203
Hispanic−2.690.041
Body Mass Index (BMI)Normal weight−0.580.170
Overweight0.640.070
Obesity−0.340.207
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Di Nucci, A.; Pilloni, S.; Scognamiglio, U.; Rossi, L. Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Food Neophobia Occurrence in Children: A Study Carried out in Italy. Nutrients 2023, 15, 5078. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15245078

AMA Style

Di Nucci A, Pilloni S, Scognamiglio U, Rossi L. Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Food Neophobia Occurrence in Children: A Study Carried out in Italy. Nutrients. 2023; 15(24):5078. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15245078

Chicago/Turabian Style

Di Nucci, Annalisa, Simone Pilloni, Umberto Scognamiglio, and Laura Rossi. 2023. "Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Food Neophobia Occurrence in Children: A Study Carried out in Italy" Nutrients 15, no. 24: 5078. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15245078

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop