Abstract
Feeding children is part of family caregiving. Children with Down syndrome have increased risks for feeding problems, but there is limited literature on caregiving specific to feeding children with Down syndrome. The purpose of this study is to understand mothers’ experiences related to feeding their 3- to 10-year-old children with Down syndrome within family and sociocultural contexts. This was a qualitative study using interviews and photo-elicitation. Twenty-nine mothers of children with Down syndrome in the United States participated. Three themes were identified: (a) Feeding Challenges and Foodwork Related to the Child’s Feeding Attributes, (b) Family Dynamics and Routines that Impact Foodwork, and (c) Influence of Family and Sociocultural Norms on Feeding Experiences. Mothers engage in complex family caregiving work to feed their children with Down syndrome. Feeding can be influenced by child and family characteristics and by sociocultural contexts. Findings have implications for clinical practice and research.
Down syndrome (DS) is a developmental disability in which individuals have alterations on chromosome 21 (Stallings et al., 2024). With a prevalence of approximately one in 643 live births, DS is the most frequent chromosome-related cause of intellectual disability in the United States (Bull, 2020; Stallings et al., 2024). Individuals with DS commonly have elevated risks of comorbidities including congenital heart defects, thyroid conditions, overweight/obesity, and feeding and swallowing challenges (Bull, 2020; Nordstrøm et al., 2020). Estimates of the prevalence of feeding and/or swallowing problems for infants and children with DS have ranged from 30% to 58%, but further research is needed in this area (Baumer et al., 2023; Nordstrøm et al., 2020; O’Neill & Richter, 2013; Rogers et al., 2022). Children with DS can live long, healthy lives, but health promotion efforts must begin early in childhood to maximize health outcomes in this population.
Feeding and nutrition are essential aspects of health promotion for children with DS due to their risks for both overweight/obesity and feeding challenges, which can range from dysphagia to food selectivity (Nordstrøm et al., 2020). Exploring feeding and nutrition in childhood is crucial because feeding routines and experiences in childhood have the potential to impact eating habits throughout life (Nordstrøm et al., 2020; Polfuss et al., 2019). Yet, the body of literature focused on feeding children with DS is limited.
Feeding children occurs within family and sociocultural contexts and is an aspect of family caregiving. Feeding involves numerous physical and mental tasks, such as planning, budgeting, and shopping for food, along with preparing and cooking food according to family members’ dietary requirements and preferences (DeVault, 1991). The term “foodwork” encompasses this complex family caregiving work involved in feeding (Brenton, 2017; Fielding-Singh & Oleschuk, 2023). Similar to other caregiving work, foodwork is most often done by women and is undervalued in society (Brenton, 2017; Fielding-Singh & Oleschuk, 2023). There is limited literature on foodwork involved in feeding children with DS. Most existing studies have primarily included mothers, but explorations of how family and sociocultural factors, including ideologies such as gender norms, may contribute to feeding have been minimal. Understanding participants’ everyday experiences related to feeding is critical to develop clinical interventions for this population. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand mothers’ experiences related to feeding their 3–10-year-old children with DS within family and sociocultural contexts.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework guiding this qualitative study is based on a synthesis of an ecological model with feminist theory (Marston et al., 2024). Ecological models prioritize sociocultural contexts and levels of individual-environment interactions. The interaction levels in the theoretical framework guiding this study are based on work by Bronfenbrenner (1977). The microsystem includes individuals or families and their proximal environments, which in this study includes mothers of children with DS and the family members they regularly interact with. Characteristics of each child and family member contribute to microsystem interactions. The mesosystem, which involves interactions between microsystems, can include interactions between mothers and extended family members or health care providers. The exosystem represents societal institutions and policies, such as health care access policies, that may contribute to individual and family experiences. The macrosystem encompasses wider societal ideologies, such as gender roles and stigma against disability, which influence individual and family experiences at all interaction levels. Feminist theory emphasizes how societal ideologies in the macrosystem about motherhood, gender, and feeding may contribute to women’s experiences. Obtaining mothers’ perspectives about feeding within the contexts of family, social, and environmental interactions while considering the gendered experience of feeding allows for a comprehensive, innovative approach to studying mothers’ experiences feeding children with DS (Marston et al., 2024).
Methods
The findings reported are a subset of a larger qualitative, descriptive study of mothers’ experiences related to food and feeding their children with DS. Participants were recruited across the United States using purposive sampling. Eligibility criteria included self-identifying as the mother of a child 3 to 10 years old with DS, speaking English, and being able to complete a virtual interview via Zoom. Recruitment sites included DS-affiliated community and professional organizations, conferences, and social media. Snowball sampling was also used. The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at the university the study was conducted at on March 21, 2023 (IRB #23.153). Participants provided verbal informed consent prior to study enrollment. Participants were also offered the option to sign an additional release form allowing photos they submitted to be used in publications and presentations about the study.
Data collection included a semi-structured interview, a brief online demographic survey, and a photo-elicitation component in which participants submitted between one and 10 photos related to their experiences feeding their child with DS. Interviews were conducted by the first author via Zoom. Each participant completed their virtual interview in a location of their choice. The interview guide included open-ended questions about participants’ experiences feeding children with DS. Interviews also included open-ended questions about the photos each participant shared, and how photos were relevant to participants’ experiences feeding their children. Photos supplemented interview data and facilitated further, more in-depth discussion of interview topics (Glaw et al., 2017). Photos often served as examples of experiences participants described or prompted participants to recall new information to add to the interview.
The first author transcribed interviews verbatim and confirmed each transcript against recordings for accuracy. Identifying details were removed from transcripts and each transcript was labeled with a participant identification number instead of participants’ names. Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2021, 2022) was used to analyze data. The first and last author reviewed transcripts. The first author read transcripts and viewed recordings and photos multiple times and developed initial codes. The first and last author met regularly to discuss and refine potential codes, which were applied systematically across the dataset. Final themes were established with consensus. Data analysis was ongoing throughout the study. Recruitment was stopped after data saturation was achieved.
The trustworthiness of the findings was addressed in several ways. Member checks were conducted to verify findings with participants. Photos provided an additional opportunity to clarify information because the interviewer asked participants how each photo related to what was previously discussed in the interview (Glaw et al., 2017). Triangulation was used by collecting multiple sources of data, including interviews, photos, and the survey, as well as by recruiting participants from multiple sites across the nation (Flick, 2018; Guba, 1981). The first author kept an audit trail and a reflexive journal and engaged in reflexivity throughout the research process, an essential concept in feminist-guided research (Hall & Stevens, 1991).
Results
Sample Characteristics
Twenty-nine individuals who identified as mothers of a child 3 to 10 years old with DS participated in the study. The mean age of participants’ children with DS was 5.6 years. Five participants (17%) identified as Hispanic, 22 (76%) identified as white only, and seven (24%) identified themselves as Black, Asian, another race, or more than one race. Twenty-three participants (79%) were married, four (14%) lived with a partner and two (7%) were single. All participants with partners identified their partner as male, and in all but one case, the male partner was the father of the child with DS. Two participants’ children with DS split time between each parents’ households but lived with their mother more than 50% of the time. All other participants’ children with DS lived with them 100% of the time. See additional demographic data in Table 1.
Sample Demographic Characteristics.
Note. USD = United States Dollars.
Includes child with Down syndrome. Also includes step-children and children who are over 18 if applicable.
Themes
Our team found three themes and nine subthemes that reflected factors contributing to mothers’ experiences feeding their children with DS within family and sociocultural contexts. The main themes were (a) Feeding Challenges and Foodwork Related to the Child’s Feeding Attributes, (b) Family Dynamics and Routines that Impact Foodwork, and (c) Influence of Family and Sociocultural Norms on Feeding Experiences (see Table 2).
Themes, Subthemes, and Key Findings.
Theme 1: Feeding Challenges and Foodwork Related to the Child’s Feeding Attributes
Feeding abilities and challenges of each child with DS varied, however, common themes were identified regarding how the child’s feeding attributes contributed to mothers’ experiences.
Oral-Motor Feeding Challenges
Seventeen participants described oral-motor feeding challenges their child with DS experienced related to difficulties with chewing, swallowing, and choking. Thirteen participants described how their children with DS had challenges chewing thoroughly and/or overstuffing their mouth with food. Participants described extra steps they took to prevent overstuffing and choking, such as cutting their child’s food into small, bite-size pieces. Three participants’ children had a history of aspiration, and three participants described choking incidents their children experienced that required urgent intervention including the Heimlich maneuver and calling 911 for emergency help. Other children experienced more mild symptoms related to choking and overstuffing. For one participant with a 7-year-old child with DS, their child’s oral-motor challenges related to chewing and swallowing resolved over time. However, for other participants, their child’s oral-motor challenges were persistent as the child grew older. Mothers whose children experienced choking described the lasting impact that previous choking incidents had on their mindset, stressing the need to always watch their child closely and stay vigilant to prevent choking. One participant with a 10-year-old child for whom overstuffing and choking have been consistent problems since toddlerhood described, She has um, choked on stuff. So . . . we make sure everything’s smaller . . . we cut, even our ice cream. We make it into small like, cut it up into small pieces, or she’ll put the whole like, scoop in her mouth . . . I always make sure that it’s, you know, chewable, it’s not big. I’m always worried about that. (Participant 12)
See Figure 1, a photo submitted by Participant 12, for an example of the extra steps mothers took to prepare food for their children who had risks of choking. Figure 1 shows a portion of the lunch that Participant 12 packs for her 10-year-old child with DS to take to school, and includes bite-sized foods that are easy to chew and grapes that the participant cuts in half to prevent choking.

Photo Submitted by Participant 12: Part of the Lunch That This Participant Packs for Child With DS to Take to School; Includes Bite-Sized Foods That Are Easy to Chew and Grapes That the Participant Cuts in Half to Prevent Choking
Food Allergies or Intolerances
Nine participants’ children with DS had food allergies or intolerances, ranging from lactose intolerance to severe food allergies. Two children had been diagnosed with celiac disease, and two children had been diagnosed with Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome (FPIES). Traveling and eating outside of the home was challenging for these participants and their children with DS, particularly when children had celiac disease or FPIES. At times, participants were worried about allergen exposure and thus took careful steps to ensure that their children would not inadvertently eat foods with ingredients they were allergic to. One participant, whose 10-year-old son with DS has celiac disease, discussed the challenges of traveling, which the participant’s family does often to visit relatives: Traveling with food issues is, is difficult because we are limited to what kinda fast food restaurants we can go. Chick-fil-A . . . that’s pretty much been like the only thing that he can, can really eat. Um, they do offer some grilled chicken nuggets that he loves. But other places, you know, like McDonald’s, every kid loves McDonald’s. He can’t eat at McDonalds, ’cause even the fries are fried in the grease that they fry donuts in, or chicken nuggets in that are coated, so, you have to really ask questions whenever you go to any kind of restaurant. . . . Um, it’s a, a big undertaking. (Participant 26)
Food Selectivity and Texture Sensitivity
Twenty-four participants reported that their child with DS had some degree of food selectivity, including sensitivity to different food textures. Some children’s selectivity was mild and required minimal extra foodwork on behalf of participants. For example, one participant described her 6-year-old child’s selectivity regarding vegetables, and strategies to manage it by offering vegetables in different forms: “He’s very picky. If he sees color, um, if he sees green or red or orange, he wants nothing to do with it. So we do . . . oven baked breaded green beans, or we do um, breaded cauliflower” (Participant 5). Another participant described her 4-year-old child’s selectivity related to food textures, stating that although her child does not like the texture of things that “crumble in his mouth” (Participant 4), like cookies or crackers, he still eats many other foods including fruits, vegetables, and meat.
More Pronounced Food Selectivity and Texture Sensitivity
Of the 24 participants whose children demonstrated food selectivity and texture sensitivity, 11 participants had children with more severe food selectivity and texture sensitivity, such that it was often challenging for children to eat enough food every day. Nine children required daily calorie supplements, and four children had feeding tubes. At the time of the interview, all 11 participants’ children with DS were enrolled in feeding therapy, although two participants were in the process of changing therapy providers. Most participants’ children with DS in this group were younger (seven children were 3–4 years old), but several children were older (four children were 5–8 years old).
The most common challenge that participants’ children in this group experienced was texture sensitivity with strong preferences for liquids or pureed foods. Several children accepted some solid foods intermittently, but most children refused any oral intake that was not pureed texture or liquid. One mother whose 3-year-old child with DS has a feeding tube described her daughter’s texture sensitivity and how her progression to eating solids, with hope for eventually weaning off the feeding tube, has been slow: With any sort of textures, or anything that’s solid . . . as soon as it goes in her mouth she immediately will rip it out . . . it’s something that has been a big work in progress [with feeding therapy] for a very long time, that feels like you’re just kind of stuck in a rut and, and not going anywhere, because she just will not—she doesn’t like anything that’s solid, and the, the feel of that. (Participant 1)
Mothers made efforts to include their children with DS who had severe food selectivity and texture sensitivity in family mealtimes. Often this involved seating the child with DS with the family and administering tube feedings or providing pureed food along with routinely offering solid foods that the rest of the family was eating, even if the child typically refused these offerings. One mother, whose 4-year-old daughter with DS receives tube feedings, stated, She gets 4 [tube] feeds a day, and, and I always offer her whatever food I give to [child’s sibling] . . . just to see if she’ll try it . . . So you know, I always try . . . You never know when she’ll do it [try solid foods]. You never know when she’ll just continue to throw it [solid food] off the tray. But whatever. I’d much rather pick it up off the floor . . . and take the chance that she will try it one time, than rather assume she won’t. (Participant 15)
See Figure 2 for a photograph submitted by Participant 15, which shows an example mealtime, during which a daughter with DS receives her tube feedings while sitting in her high chair.

Photo Submitted by Participant 15: An Example Mealtime for the With DS, Who Receives Tube Feedings While Sitting in Her High Chair and Is Included in Family Mealtime
Similar to participants whose children had severe food allergies, participants whose children had significant food selectivity, sensitivity, and limited intake reported that family travel and eating outside the home could be challenging. One participant whose 3-year-old son with DS had a feeding tube described, We like to travel, and it’s something that our family loves to do together. So we have got the hang of it now. I, it took a little research, and I had to . . . look up, TSA rules . . . I always bring note from his doctor, so that I can bring the liquids on the plane . . . it’s honestly, it’s, we’re used to it. You know, we have to maybe sometimes pay for an extra suitcase to bring his formula or things like that. (Participant 24)
See Figure 3, a photograph submitted by Participant 24, for an example of the daily supplies needed for administering tube feedings to the child. Participants whose children with DS experienced significant food selectivity, sensitivity, and limited oral intake were often focused on making sure their child gained weight or maintained their current weight. Nine participants provided daily calorie supplements to their children with DS under the advice of health care providers. One participant with a 3-year-old with DS, described trying to get her child to eat and drink enough as: “Challenging and overwhelming and exhausting” (Participant 10). Another participant in this group with a 3-year-old child explained, “I am always aware of, like, you know, she’s a little on the thin side, and she needs to be bigger, or she needs to eat more like what, what’d she eat that day” (Participant 2).

Photo Submitted by Participant 24: Daily Supplies Needed for Administering Tube Feedings
Overeating
In contrast to participants whose children with DS had significant food selectivity and limited oral intake, there were nine participants who were concerned about their children with DS overeating. Six participants, whose children with DS ranged from 4 to 7 years old, described how their children would overeat preferred foods and not know when to stop eating these foods. Three participants, whose children with DS ranged from 7 to 10 years old, described how their children overate in general, including overeating preferred foods but also, for example, asking for more food after finishing a large meal. Two participants were concerned about significant weight gain their children with DS experienced in the past year before the interview. The remaining participants in this group were not explicitly concerned about their child gaining weight, and their priority in terms of preventing overeating was to promote their child’s health and healthy eating habits. Participants discussed strategies to prevent their children from overeating, such as monitoring portion size, distracting the child from eating more, and regularly discussing with the child how to recognize feeling hungry or full. One participant described how she tries to teach her 10-year-old daughter with DS, who often overeats, to recognize feeling full: I’ll have her like, touch her tummy, like, “Is your tummy tight?” and she’ll [be] like, “Yeah.” I’m like, “Does your tummy hurt?,” she’s like, “Yeah.” I’m like, “Well, that means that you’re full. If your tummy feels like that, that means that you can’t eat anymore.” (Participant 28)
Theme 2: Family Dynamics and Routines That Impact Foodwork
Participants described their role in daily family foodwork routines. Twenty-three participants reported doing all or most of the foodwork in their households. Four participants reported sharing most foodwork with their partner. Two participants stated that their partner did more foodwork. Participants provided various reasons why the foodwork routines or the division of responsibilities in their families existed as they did.
Participants Who Did All or Almost All Daily Foodwork
Thirteen participants did all or nearly all of the foodwork in their homes. Eleven participants in this group lived with a partner and two participants were the only adults in their household. Five of these participants worked full-time for pay, three worked part-time for pay, and five did not work for pay. One participant, who did not work for pay and whose partner did work for pay, described feeding her family of five children, including a 10-year-old with DS: “My husband occasionally will do some cooking, but that’s kind of um, sporadic. And when the inspiration hits. But. . . I’d say 98% of the time I’m the one that’s prepping the meals [including shopping] and doing the cooking” (Participant 26). Another participant who did not work for pay and whose partner did work for pay summarized her role in feeding her 3-year-old son with DS: “I mean, I control his nutrition” (Participant 13).
Participants Who Did Most of the Foodwork, With a Partner’s Help
Ten participants did the majority of foodwork, but their partners assisted them. Four of these participants worked full-time for pay, three worked part-time for pay, and three did not work for pay. Participants in this group commonly described their partners as “helping” or completing specific tasks related to feeding their child. One participant, who does not work for pay and whose partner does work for pay, described how her husband helps with foodwork for their six children, including a 6-year-old with DS: “So if I have forgotten maybe to take something out of the freezer whatnot, then my husband will take over, and he’ll usually make something simple. Um, quesadillas, or a frozen pizza” (Participant 19).
Reasons Why Participants Did More Foodwork Than Partners
Partnered participants who reported doing all, nearly all, or most of the foodwork in their homes described various reasons why the division of foodwork responsibilities existed as it did in their households. Many reasons were related to scheduling and logistics. Commonly, participants stated that they did more foodwork because their partner either worked more hours for pay, or their partner’s paid work hours were less conducive to family foodwork routines (e.g., their partner was not regularly home at dinner time). Several participants reported that they enjoyed or were more skilled at foodwork than their partners. One participant, who works full-time for pay and whose partner also works full-time for pay, described why she does the cooking for her family, which includes a 3-year-old child with DS and one sibling: “[laughs] ’Cause my husband can’t cook! [laughs] Unless we want to have hamburger helper or pizza, uh, it’s me!” (Participant 1). Several participants discussed how they have “always” been the caregiver in their families who does more foodwork. One participant, who works full-time and whose partner also works full time, discussed why she is the one who does the cooking and shopping for her family, which includes her 10-year-old child with DS: “I, [shakes head] it’s always been me! [laughs]” (Participant 12).
Participants also described how they assumed responsibility for the mental workload related to feeding their children with DS. One participant, who works full-time and whose partner also works full-time, described how she takes more responsibility than her partner to ensure that their 7-year-old child with DS, who eats pureed foods and requires calorie supplements to meet his nutritional needs, is eating sufficient calories daily. This participant also described how she engages in more of the mental work of monitoring her child’s feeding skills and ensuring that he is making progress with feeding: This like, focus for me of like . . . What are we doing to, you know, move things forward in our feeding therapy, um, journey? . . . I feel like my husband would otherwise have been like, ‘well, he’s growing and . . . he’s, you know, doin’ okay.’ And . . . my goal for him, for our son, is not that he does okay . . . I want us to optimize his potential. And . . . if not doing what . . . his, you know, neurotypical peers are doing, um, as close to that . . . as possible. And feeding included. But it’s been largely on me to figure that out. Otherwise, it stays the status quo. (Participant 14)
Participants Who Shared Foodwork With Partners
Four participants shared most foodwork with their partner equally. Two of these participants did not work for pay, and two worked for pay full-time. One participant provided several examples of how she and her partner share foodwork together, including working together to pack supplies when traveling with their 5-year-old child with DS, who mainly eats purees and requires daily calorie supplements: We do it together . . . I’m kind of like a visual person, or my husband’s like a math person. So he’d be like, “Okay, we’re gone for 3 days. This is how much bottles [of calorie supplement] he needs” . . . And then I like, lay it out, um like, actually on the kitchen counter. And we kind of like, [say], “Do we have everything? Okay? Good.” So then we pack it. Um so it’s, it is a partnership in that way. (Participant 23)
The additional three participants who reported sharing foodwork with their partner also described daily tasks they shared with their partner, such as taking turns making family meals or shopping for food. One of these participants described how she did not want to be the sole caregiver responsible for feeding, thus she and her partner agreed to share foodwork. The two other participants described sharing foodwork but did not discuss detailed reasons why foodwork was shared. However, all three of these participants provided more examples of foodwork tasks that they completed themselves compared to their partners. For example, two participants described how they do most of the grocery shopping for their household. When participants described instances of doing more foodwork than their partner, rationale again was centered on logistic reasons such as having more flexible daily schedules than their partners. One participant, when probed about why she does the grocery shopping, stated, “Uh, my husband works full time, and I am a stay-at-home mom, so I just have the, the bandwidth for it” (Participant 4).
Participants Whose Partners Did More Foodwork
Two participants had partners who did more foodwork. One participant, who worked full-time for pay, previously did the foodwork for her family and it became too difficult to balance with other family caregiving responsibilities. This participant asked her partner, who also works full-time, to take over cooking and shopping while she did other caregiving tasks, and her husband agreed (Participant 29). The other participant, who did not work for pay, stated that she “can’t cook,” thus, her husband does the cooking in the household (Participant 18).
Sibling and Extended Family Influences on Foodwork
Twenty-four participants had more than one child, though all participants had only one child with DS. Many participants discussed how siblings of the child with DS and extended family members played important roles related to feeding. Participants generally described their other children as helpful with feeding the child with DS. The child with DS was the youngest in most families; however, a few children with DS had younger siblings. Participants discussed how older siblings would sometimes help prepare food or help feed their younger sibling with DS. Siblings also helped encourage the child with DS to try new foods. For some participants, their experiences raising their older children helped shape their perspective on feeding and raising their child with DS. One participant, who has two children older than her 5-year-old with DS, discussed her view on her son with DS’s food selectivity: I don’t worry about that, because I had a picky eater, and he [sibling] eventually evolved . . . If [child with DS] was my first kid, or my second kid . . . I think I would really struggle with like, “he’s not eating this,” or “he’s not doing this,” and “his growth is really slow” . . . but I think having older kids and kind of [having] been down that road, it’s, I feel like parents worry about too much. (Participant 16)
Ten participants described interacting frequently with extended family members, most of whom lived close by. Participants described how these relatives were supportive and helpful in caring for and/or feeding their child with DS. This included family members helping with grocery shopping or cooking as well as providing hands-on child care to the child with DS. Eleven participants described living far away from most of their extended family and thus saw and interacted with relatives less frequently. Six participants did not think that relationships with extended family members significantly contributed to their experiences feeding their children with DS. Two participants described their extended family as not being very helpful or supportive, even if they lived close by.
Several participants described how interactions with extended family could be stressful at times, particularly when children with DS had more significant feeding challenges. For example, some extended family members offered food to a child with DS that the child was allergic to or was a choking hazard. Participants described the need to be extra vigilant about making sure their child could eat safely when around relatives. At times, extended family members offered unsolicited advice about feeding, especially when children with DS had limited oral intake due to food selectivity and sensitivity. Although participants acknowledged that their relatives were well-meaning, these interactions could be frustrating. One participant whose 8-year-old child with DS eats pureed foods and liquids by mouth and receives calorie supplements described, When we eat meals with other people, particularly older people like our parents, um, who haven’t necessarily seen all of the appointments . . . they’re like . . . “Oh, have you tried this? Have you tried this?” And it’s like, “yeah, we tried that seven times 4 years ago,” you know.” (Participant 7)
Theme 3: Influence of Family and Sociocultural Norms and on Feeding Experiences
Participants described how family, cultural, and societal traditions related to food contributed to their experiences feeding children with DS. Participants’ family histories and cultural traditions were intertwined with Western societal norms and expectations related to gender, family, and food.
Gendered Family Foodwork Traditions
When discussing daily foodwork routines, most participants cited logistic reasons, such as paid work schedules, as rationale for the current division of foodwork labor in their households. Few participants discussed how societal norms and expectations on women, or gender roles, impacted their experiences feeding their children. However, several participants described family traditions that aligned with typical gender roles. Participants acknowledged the traditions of women doing most of the foodwork in their families historically but emphasized logistic reasons or personal preference for why they currently do most of the foodwork. One participant, who works part-time for pay and whose husband works full-time for pay, discussed foodwork for her family of four children, including a 3-year-old with DS: For me and [husband], we both grew up in I guess what you would call a traditional family, where mom was the one home with us the most, and made the meals and took care of the kids. Not that either of our dads weren’t around, they were, and they did help. But it was similar to what [husband] and I do now, where I’m just home more now, and . . . yeah, I, I actually enjoy taking care of the family like that and cooking much more than he does. (Participant 24)
Compromising on Family Traditions Rooted in Cultural and Ethnic Identity
Several participants discussed how family and cultural norms and traditions about foodwork and gender specific to their cultural, racial, and ethnic identities contributed to their experiences feeding their children. Often, participants tried to find compromises between cultural expectations and their own family priorities and demands of their daily lives. At times, participants actively resisted cultural traditions, including those that aligned with typical gender roles. Resisting gendered family caregiving traditions was mentioned particularly often by women who identified as Hispanic. Three participants who identified as Hispanic discussed their efforts to resist family traditions in which women do all the foodwork. One of these participants, whose 4-year-old child with DS has two older siblings and three older stepsiblings, stated: “Especially in our culture, they said. . . mothers are the one who cook. And that’s something that, I’m already working on it, and I’m like, ‘No. I can’t. I cannot, I can’t always cook’” (Participant 25). These participants do most of the foodwork in their households but have made concerted efforts to delegate tasks to their partners and talk with their partners about how they do not want to engage in daily foodwork alone.
Several participants described compromising on family traditions and expectations related to cultural and ethnic heritage that mothers should feed their children in a certain way. For example, one mother of two children including a 7-year-old child with DS, discussed how during her childhood, her parents prioritized healthy eating habits and talking about nutrition with their children. This participant identifies as white. Her husband, who identifies as Mexican, was raised with different expectations related to food. She explained, He [husband] says that in a Mexican family, if your child is skinny, that is a bad reflection on the mother, the parents, because they haven’t fed their child well. But . . . if the child is fat, that’s a good thing, ’cause they’ve, the mother has fed him well, um. So . . . you know, two very, very different kind of backgrounds, trying to compromise in, in current life. (Participant 11)
Other participants who did not self-identify as Hispanic, including those who identified as either White, Black, Asian, another race, or more than one race, also discussed how their cultural and ethnic heritages contributed to their experiences feeding their children. However, these participants did not emphasize their cultural and ethnic heritage to the degree that participants who identified as Hispanic did. Although participants across all demographic categories discussed how societal ideologies regarding women and motherhood impacted their daily experiences, women who identified as Hispanic put more emphasis on how ideologies specific to the Hispanic heritage in their families contributed to daily experiences.
Countering Wider Societal Ideologies
Participants also described broad societal ideologies and social pressure on mothers to assume family feeding responsibilities and feed children healthy food, particularly organic or natural food. Participants prioritized feeding their children nutritious foods and encouraging healthy eating habits but needed to find ways to balance the social pressure to feed their families in a healthy way with the daily demands of their lives. At times, this social pressure was intertwined with expectations from participants’ family members. One participant, whose 3-year-old child with DS eats mainly pureed foods, explained, Nowadays. . . it’s so much more like, “Oh, you have to feed your baby all organic and all you know, sugar-free, and all these things are bad for you” . . . even like you know, from my own family, like I’ve heard. . . “Oh, you should just puree . . . fruits and vegetables . . . yourself,” and, which is great, like, I would love to do that. But I’m going to admit that most of the time I don’t wanna like, sit there and be like, “Oh, make myself have more work to do” . . . sometimes I’m totally fine with just buying like the pre-made, pre-packaged, whatever. (Participant 2)
Other participants discussed balancing societal pressure to feed their children in a certain way with their desire to make sure mealtime was not stressful. A participant with two children, including a 4-year-old with DS who has sensitivity to some food textures, described, I’ve gotten older and just realized, you know, some of the societal pressures . . . I really try not to let any of the weight of, you know, the stuff about like ‘all natural, and you know, can’t do that or can’t give your kids that.’ I just want them [participant’s children] to eat. I want them to be okay. I want them to be as healthy as possible, and I don’t want mealtimes to be a battle. So that I think that’s where my head is at these days, is just how can we enjoy our mealtime versus having it be a battle for the “absolute best.” (Participant 4)
Despite efforts to resist societal messaging, many participants still felt strong social pressure to feed their children in a certain way and to be the caregiver who is responsible for feeding in their family. One participant described how these social expectations contribute to her experiences feeding her 7-year-old child with DS: I try not to like guilt myself in, in like ‘you’re not doing enough’ in terms of what she’s [child with DS] eating or how she’s eating. She’s not eating enough greens, and she’s not eating enough this and she’s not eating enough that. But definitely that feeling of . . . you have to provide, like it, it, her habits that she is going to have for the rest of her life are depending on you as a mom. Like, that’s it. Like Dad—no . . . it doesn’t matter what he eats or what he wants to eat or what like; it’s gonna be you [mom]. You’re the one who’s feeding your family. (Participant 9)
Discussion
Participants in this qualitative study offered insight into the everyday experiences of mothers of young children with DS regarding feeding within family and societal contexts. The use of a theoretical framework based on ecological and feminist perspectives (Marston et al., 2024) helped highlight the foodwork that mothers of children with DS do in their homes while considering the family and sociocultural contexts that feeding occurs in. Societal ideologies such as gender roles that occur in the macrosystem interact with microsystem factors, such as specific feeding challenges each child with DS encounters, and mesosystem factors, such as interactions with extended family members, to contribute to mothers’ daily experiences.
We found foodwork varies in intensity and complexity based on characteristics and feeding-related attributes of each child with DS. Particularly, mothers in this study engaged in more intensive, complex foodwork when their children with DS experienced feeding challenges that are common for children with DS, such as choking, food allergies, and significant food selectivity and/or texture sensitivity. When children had increased risks for choking or had food allergies, mothers carefully planned for, prepared, and monitored the foods their children ate to prevent incidents of choking or allergen exposure. Mothers’ stories demonstrated the physical and mental aspects of foodwork they engaged in daily. For example, for children with increased risks of choking, mental foodwork included always staying vigilant about potential choking hazards, and physical foodwork included cutting food into small pieces. These intricate physical and mental aspects of foodwork further demonstrate the complexity of feeding, illustrating that caregiving involved in feeding extends beyond mealtimes, and often involves time-consuming planning and food preparation.
In previous studies, caregivers of children with DS ages 2 to 6 (Brantley et al., 2023) and 1 to 3 years old (Caldwell et al., 2023) have also described increased foodwork and caregiver stress involved in caring for children with DS who had a history of choking. Results from the current study extend these findings by demonstrating that the intense physical and mental foodwork related to preventing choking can persist for mothers whose children with DS are up to 10 years old. Considering these results within the context of evidence that swallowing problems may persist for children with DS through middle and late childhood (O’Neill & Richter, 2013) may underscore the need for early and ongoing assessment and intervention for feeding and swallowing difficulties for children with DS.
Almost all participants’ children with DS in our study had some degree of food selectivity. Other investigators have also found food selectivity and texture sensitivity to be challenging for caregivers when feeding children with DS (Brantley et al., 2023; Caldwell et al., 2023; Polfuss et al., 2019). A unique aspect of our sample was the proportion of mothers whose children with DS had food selectivity and texture sensitivity to a degree that they mainly ate pureed foods and required caloric supplementation due to limited oral food intake. These participants engaged in intensive physical and mental foodwork daily to ensure adequate nutrition and growth for their children with DS while simultaneously working to advance the variety of their child’s diets. Although exact prevalence estimates for this degree of texture sensitivity in children with DS are not available in current literature, existing evidence suggests that for children with DS ages 11 to 59 months, difficulties with food textures may decrease over time as children grow (Ross et al., 2019). However, in this study, several participants’ children with DS who demonstrated severe food selectivity and texture sensitivity requiring caloric supplementation were 5 years old or older. These findings suggest the need for longitudinal research to investigate caregiver’s experiences feeding children with DS over time.
Over half of participants in this study expressed concerns about their child with DS either eating too much or not eating enough, which underscores the need for further research to explore physiologic mechanisms of hunger and satiety, as well as energy expenditure and caloric needs, for children with DS (Bertapelli et al., 2016; Polfuss et al., 2023). This is particularly important given the risks for overweight/obesity in this population, which can develop later in life even if children struggle to gain weight and/or maintain caloric intake during childhood (Barreiro et al., 2022). Further investigation of parents’ perceptions about the weight status of their young children with DS, caregiver feeding practices, and how these may change over time is indicated.
Most participants in this sample engaged in all or most of the foodwork in their homes, including both physical and mental aspects of foodwork, even if they also worked for pay outside the home. The rationale for the division of foodwork labor typically centered on logistics or personal preference. Mothers who did more foodwork than their partners often attributed this to their own paid work schedules being more accommodating to foodwork, or that they enjoyed foodwork more or were more skilled at it than their partners. Some participants found it difficult to specify reasons why they did more foodwork than their partners and reported that they had “always” done the foodwork in their families. Although several participants did acknowledge the existence of gender roles in society or in their own families, as well as social pressure for mothers to be the primary caregivers for their families and feed their children in specific ways, participants often still emphasized logistic reasons for the division of labor within their own homes. It is possible that because macrosystem sociocultural expectations and traditions regarding women, caregiving, and feeding are so ingrained in Western society (Fielding-Singh & Oleschuk, 2023), it is difficult for individuals to recognize how their own foodwork routines may align with traditional gender role expectations. These findings of alignment of daily foodwork with typical gender roles among couples but emphasis on logistic reasons for the division of foodwork are similar to those of Tan et al. (2020). In their study with parents of typically developing children, Tan et al. (2020) also found that mothers did more foodwork than fathers, but did not explicitly acknowledge gender roles as a reason for this division of labor and instead focused on logistic reasons, such as mothers’ schedules being more flexible.
When participants’ partners shared some or all family foodwork with them, participants often described their partner’s contributions in terms of tasks that were completed. Participants themselves were more likely than their partners to make guiding decisions for their families about food and feeding. This suggests that even when mothers of young children with DS have support from partners with foodwork tasks, they are often the primary caregiver to engage in the mental workload of foodwork. Societal ideologies about feeding and motherhood may also contribute to the mental workload of caregiving. Several mothers in this study perceived social pressure to feed their children ’healthy,’ natural,’ and “organic” foods. This aligns with the concept of an “intensive feeding” ideology where mothers may feel stigmatized if they do not comply with societal pressure to feed children healthy, organic foods (Brenton, 2017; Fielding-Singh & Oleschuk, 2023). Additional family dynamics, including whether children with DS have siblings and/or support from extended family members, also contribute to maternal feeding experiences. In this study, siblings were helpful both with everyday feeding tasks and by offering a different perspective of feeding to mothers. Many extended family members were supportive of mothers and their children with DS, but interactions with extended family could also be challenging. Remarks from some extended family members were stressful for mothers, and at times family members offered unsafe foods to children with a history of choking or food allergies, thus requiring mothers to stay extra vigilant about monitoring what their children ate.
Family traditions and expectations interacted with sociocultural ideologies to contribute to mothers’ feeding experiences. Mothers in this study tried to find balance between family traditions and societal expectations about feeding and their own daily caregiving workloads. In particular, participants who identified as Hispanic discussed how common ideologies within their heritage contributed to their experiences. This is notable because the prevalence of DS tends to be higher when mothers identify as Hispanic (Stallings et al., 2024). However, there were few women in this study who identified as non-Hispanic Asian, Black, and more than one race. Thus, it is possible that potential findings about how participants’ cultural and ethnic heritages influence their experiences feeding their children with DS were missed due to the limited representation of participants from these demographic categories. Further investigation into how mothers of children with DS balance family, cultural, and societal traditions and expectations about feeding with daily caregiving responsibilities is warranted, with increased racial and ethnic diversity within study samples.
Strengths and Limitations
Although the inclusion of women only with the feminist viewpoint can be considered a strength, it is also a limitation that fathers and other family members including siblings and extended family members were not included in our sample. Investigations to obtain the perspectives of fathers and other family caregivers regarding caregiving for children with disabilities within the family context are warranted (Van Riper et al., 2023). The study sample included participants from diverse backgrounds and communities across the continental United States, which is a strength. However, only English-speaking participants were included, and the majority of participants identified as non-Hispanic and white. Additional studies that include more participants of color and participants who speak languages other than English are indicated. International studies, including comparisons between caregivers in different countries, are also indicated (Van Riper et al., 2023). Most participants in this study had average to high yearly household incomes. Feeding children depends on caregivers being able to shop for affordable food, and further studies on foodwork with more participants from families with lower incomes are indicated and may yield different findings.
Findings from this study focus on foodwork within the family context. However, aspects of feeding and foodwork extend beyond the family. Participants in this sample also reported engaging in feeding-related activities including communicating with their children’s health care providers and school staff about feeding concerns. These findings, which provide a more complete picture of the complex foodwork that mothers of children with DS engage in regularly, are reported elsewhere (Marston et al., 2025).
Implications for Research and Practice
Findings from this study indicate that further research is needed to investigate the experiences of mothers of young children with DS, including longitudinal studies with more diverse samples and other caregivers. In clinical practice, nurses and other health care providers caring for children with DS and their families should acknowledge that mothers are typically responsible for most family foodwork, which can include intensive physical and mental caregiving tasks. However, health care providers should also recognize the complex social, cultural, and familial contexts in which foodwork occurs so that mothers are not “blamed” if their children have challenges with feeding or weight (Fielding-Singh & Oleschuk, 2023). Furthermore, clinicians should not make assumptions about families. Each family is unique, as is their child with DS. Family assessment is critical to success with foodwork; health care providers must elicit what happens within each family if they are to provide meaningful recommendations. Discussing who lives in the household and who typically shops, prepares, and cooks food for the family and offering practical suggestions for feeding may be helpful to families during clinical interactions. By considering the unique characteristics of each child and family and recognizing that feeding is a complex task occurring within family and sociocultural contexts, health care providers can better provide family-centered, individualized care to children with DS and their families.
Conclusion
Few studies have been focused on the feeding aspect of family caregiving for children with DS. Findings from this study address this gap by providing insight into how contextual factors, including child characteristics, family interactions, and sociocultural ideologies, interact to contribute to mothers’ caregiving experiences specific to feeding their children with DS. Our study detailing the complex physical and mental foodwork that mothers of children with DS engage in daily provides important information to guide future research and improve clinical practice to promote the health of children with DS and their families.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Nurses Foundation of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Nursing for financial support of this study.
Author Contributions
E.M. made substantial contribution to the conceptualization and design of the study, acquired study data, analyzed and interpreted study data, drafted the work and reviewed it critically, gave final approval of the submitted manuscript, and is in agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
N. S.M. made substantial contribution to the conceptualization and design of the study, drafted the work and reviewed it critically, gave final approval of the submitted manuscript, and is in agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
K. B. made substantial contribution to the conceptualization and design of the study, reviewed the work critically, gave final approval of the submitted manuscript, and is in agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
L. M.V. made substantial contribution to the conceptualization and design of the study, reviewed the work critically, gave final approval of the submitted manuscript, and is in agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work
M. P. made substantial contribution to the conceptualization and design of the study, analyzed and interpreted study data, drafted the work and reviewed it critically, gave final approval of the submitted manuscript, and is in agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Data Availability
Research data are not shared to protect participant confidentiality.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee School of Nursing [Harriet H. Werley Doctoral Student Nursing Research Award] and the Nurses Foundation of Wisconsin (NFW) [NFW Research Grant].
Ethics Considerations
This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee (IRB protocol #23.153) on March 21, 2023.
Consent to Participate
All participants provided informed consent prior to being included in the study. Participants provided verbal informed consent prior to enrollment in the study and were offered the option to sign an additional release form allowing photos they submitted to be used in publications and presentations about the study.
Consent for Publication
Written consent was obtained to publish photographs that are included in the manuscript.
