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

• Published in: Public health nutrition 2024-04, Vol.27 (1), p.e124, Article e124
• Main Authors: Aristova, Anna, Spence, Alison C, Irwin, Christopher, Elford, Audrey, Graham, Laura, Love, Penelope
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Best practice; Child care; Child Day Care Centers - standards; Child, Preschool; Childhood; Children; Communication; Community Nutrition; Content analysis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Early childhood education; Early childhood nutrition; Economics; Education; Exercise; Female; Food; Health education; Health promotion; Health Promotion - methods; Humans; Long day care; Male; Nutrition; Nutrition environments; Nutrition Policy; Nutrition research; Policies; Policy assessments; Redevelopment; Research Paper; Socioeconomic factors; Socioeconomics; Victoria; Wellness; Written language
• ISSN: 1368-9800; 1475-2727; 1475-2727
• DOI: 10.1017/S136898002400096X

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. Cross-sectional online study to assess written ECE CNBP using the Wellness Child Care Assessment Tool. Licenced ECE centres in the state of Victoria, Australia. 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). Included individual CBNP ( 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. 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.