Guidelines for writing Chapter 5: Discussion   (Approx. 4000 words)

This begins your interpretation of the data and how they tie in with your aims and objectives. This is also where you show your ability to apply critical thinking (i.e. looking from a variety of perspectives, noting what others have said about similar results, discussing why your results are the same or different from others, etc). This is the section that shows your learning as well as your ability to analyse and synthesise all of the data and literature. Some guiding topics:

• Limitations, problems, issues arising from the research
• Discussion of findings in the context of previous research
• Implication of findings upon practice, policy, future research, etc.

Summary of study Aims

• Identify the current provision of n-3 EFAs in CDC in Leeds through questionnaires and analysis of menu’s submitted.
• Establish if findings of the current provision of n-3 EFAs in CDC in Leeds meet the guidelines outlined by the CFT (2012).
• Explore potential barriers (including SES) to providing recommended intake.
• Explore possibilities of promoting and increasing intake of n-3 EFAs in private CDC in Leeds, if found to be necessary by this study.

Discussion

 

This Chapter will interpret data in relation to establish whether the aims of this project have been achieved …

In this survey of private CDC it was found that

• Of all the reposndents xx were consistent with the voluntary CFT guidleines when offering oily fish
• However, not all respondents claimed to use the CFT (68% claimed to use CFT) guidelines.
• Leeds, many deprived areas Any differences from those CDC’s in deprived areas – x1 per week verses 2/3 x per week for one of the higher SES areas and x1 per week for the other high SES area?
• As expected – no seeds/ nuts and their oils used due to potential allergy threat.

 

1. Study Limitations
   1. Response rate
      20. 20.5% (16 from 128)
      21. What % response rate makes a study viable – provide reference?

• Potential response bias – those CDC not happy with their menu’s/ provision of n-3 EFA

1. Comparison response rate – were any other studies limited by their response rate.
   1. Neelan (2015)
   2. Parker et al 2011
   3. Lloyd-Williams 2011
2. Questionnaire
   1. Self-report of practices could have led to overestimation of provision of n-3 EFA/ using guidelines due to social desirability bias
   2. Were response rates similar by deprivation – if yes/ no, what is significance and is this a limitation?

• Not all CDC used CFT 2012 guidelines

1. Long questionnaire
   1. Why can this be a limitation
   2. It was felt that a larger questionnaire would provide required background information into how nurseries achieve food provision by considering aspects such as menu planning and if this is affected by the planners personal food preferences, attitudes and habits, staff training, problems or barriers to provision and budget constraints. Being able to evaluate these areas in comparison to previous studies may have been helpful, however, there were no previous studies that evaluated provision of n-3EFA only in England.
2. Another limitation was that, White fish was included to see if fish was served at all in the absence of oily fish, however this may have become confusing and irrelevant to the study.
3. Questions 6&7 may have been read incorrectly as some CDCs are claiming to have more children at their nursery than they are registered for. This would be a breach of regulation – provide reference from OSFTED regulations

1. Menu
   1. Potential that those who perceive themselves as having a ‘good’ menu will submit a menu. In order to manage the risk of receiving responses from perceived ‘good’ menus, careful language would have to be used to not imply their menus are not of a good standard (75% of respondents held back their menu).
   2. Key point – there has been a difference noted in survey responses and what has been reported on menu’s. The menus do not back up the findings that 45% of CDC in Leeds provide oily fish 2/3 times per week and 50% provide oily fish once per week.

• 25% of total respondents sent a menu

1. All those CDC that responded they served oily fish 2/3 times per week – no menu sent.
2. Menu –
   1. no weights/ measurements of fish portions. No information given on fish meals eaten/ wasted.
   2. Reliance on care givers reporting
      1. Under/ over reporting
   3. Comparative data – how many studies prior to CFT 2012 guidelines
3. Comparative Data (compare to aims objectives set out in this study)
   1. Other studies – use studies highlighted in blue below to address b, c, d,e, f & g
      1. Neelan 2015 – paper attached
      2. Lloyd-Williams 2011 – paper attached

• Parker et al 2011 – paper attached

1. Organix and Soil Association (2008) Georgie Porgie Pudding and Pie: Exposing the truth about Nursery Food. The Soil Organisation [online] Available at:http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=P7%2f0qfiUPe4%3d&tabid=1326
2. Mwatsama, M. (2006) Nursery Food Provision, Policy and Practice across Cheshire and Merseyside. Heart of Mersey [online]. Available at:http://www.heartofmersey.org.uk/uploadedfiles/documents/hom_1162897023_hom_nursery_food_provision,_po.pdf
3. Moore, H., Nelson, P., Marshall, J. et al. (2005) Laying foundations for health: food provision for under 5’s in day care. Appetite, 44, 207-213.

1. Compare ‘other studies’ findings of provision of oily fish to this studies findings of oily fish provision.
   1. Survey – provision greater than CFT recommendations
   2. Menu – inadequate provision in comparison to CFT
2. Which voluntary guidelines did other studies find CDC’s followed verses findings from this study regarding voluntary guidelines followed (this study 85% followed CFT).
   1. How many CDC’s sought guidance regardless of who provided them from this study?
   2. Did other studies find guidance useful?
3. Did other studies find that SES contributed to provision or lack of provision of oily fish (see table in results)?
4. Daily budget on food as a potential barrier to provision.
   1. How many studies assessed this?
   2. What did they find? Minimum amounts – versus – this studies minimum – maximum amount/ average (this study – no one under £1. 43.75% between £1-1.50 – could reflect why oily fish provision low in menus. However, survey states that 45% of CDC providing 2/3 x per week)

• This study 37.5 say budget affects menu planning V’s other studies

1. What does the Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 2011, 2012 say about budget constraints?

1. Comparison between other constraints ‘other studies versus this study
   1. Planners personal preferences
   2. Attitudes and habits towards food/ oily fish provision

• Staff training/ education
  1. Do staff have adequate knowledge of nutrition for under 5’s. Was knowledge and training adequate in this study?

1. Make statement as to whether this survey is consistent with previous surveys
2. Other Countries
   1. Any significant studies that have looked at the provision of n-3 EFA/ oily fish in nurseries/ kindergarten/ childrens day care.
3. How far have aims been answered?
4. Does Study Add Anything New?
5. Further Research/ remaining questions
   1. 100% of CDC’s in Leeds responded that parents were aware of what children were eating. Asking parents to contribute could enhance the results as this may not be the case.
   2. CFT based on schedule 5 (Education regulation). These regulations are based on needs of children aged 6-18. Further research required into what specific needs of under 5’s in terms of n-3 EFA and having guidelines tailored to meet those needs.

 

 

Other points to include where relevant

 

• Staff training figure 15 – Management and chef participate in nutritional education. However, only 31.25% are care staff – they are the one who are the front line carers who may pass on habits and help to ensure that children eat as much of the right food as possible. Parker et al links carer education to healthy food choices.

The above information suggests that further research needs to be carried out in this area before the SACN or BDA can make firm recommendations on an n-3 EFA intake.