The full title of this study is “Unraveling Childhood Obesity: A Grounded Theory Approach” to Psychological, Social, Parental, and Biological Factors.” Its four authors are from three different universities and they look at seven major categories of interest: social factors; biological and genetic factors; psychological factors; family condition-related factors; feeding and health-related practices; parenting style factors; and consequences of obesity.
These are further broken down into a couple of dozen subcategories. In other words, there is very thorough coverage of everything that is known, or suspected, to affect the bodies of young humans. Why? Because…
Despite the extensive studies that have been conducted to explore the specific issue, the impact of several factors that influence, generate, worsen, and make chronic the phenomenon needs further exploration.
This work was done in order to come up with a “grounded theory” that includes them all. According to the study authors,
Grounded theory, as a qualitative research methodology, shows great potential for solving the complexities inherent in multifactorial issues. The aim […] is to construct a theoretical framework or a cohesive explanatory mechanism that explains the phenomena being studied. The application of grounded theory methodology includes analyzing and interpreting data that are mostly qualitative like observations, interviews, texts, and documents.
Needless to say, the numerous factors “interact in complex ways, highlighting the multifactorial nature of childhood obesity.” The authors begin by discussing BMI (body mass index) and other measurement tools, and note that “the absence of a universally agreed-upon definition” of childhood obesity makes every aspect of the search for knowledge more challenging. But it is more necessary than ever, because…
[…] obesity represents a significant component of the worldwide challenge of chronic illness and disability, carrying substantial social and psychological consequences that impact individuals of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds.
In the realm of causation classification, which area holds the most sub-categories? Perhaps surprisingly to some interested parties, “social factors” includes an abundance of categories, five to be exact. One of them has to do with specific time periods, which in turn will surely be divided into even more sub-categories.
Three possibilities spring to mind. First, there is the historical era. When Americans plodded westward with covered wagons pulled by horses, very few cases of childhood obesity existed. Another place where time makes a difference is in the child’s lifespan. As one example, there appears to be a stage of infancy when trying to shovel solid food into a baby can cause lifelong damage to the digestive system.
Likewise, there is a specific time period during which a problem can be solved. Younger people are more likely to be able to lose weight through one means or another, while adults are more likely to stay fat. That is simply how things are and, as always, further research is needed on every front.
The “biological and genetic factors” category has four sub-categories, and so does “family condition-related factors.” Perhaps it is unfair, that what parents say, do, practice, preach, model, ignore, punish, reward, discuss, clam up about, encourage, discourage, and pay for (or don’t), makes so much difference. Family influence (and lack of it) is responsible for an awful lot, and there is no point in pretending.
One way or another, childhood obesity ends up being everybody’s problem. On the importance of starting early, agreement is universal. The need is felt to construct a theoretical framework that includes all the recognized factors and all the connections between them.
Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “Unraveling Childhood Obesity: A Grounded Theory Approach,” ResearchGate.net, August 2024
Image by Roy Patrick Tan/Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic
