Posted: February 23rd, 2025

Child Obesity Is A Modern Global Epidemic Psychology Research Essay

Child Obesity Is A Modern Global Epidemic Psychology

Child obesity is the new world epidemic. Many of the determinants of the obesogenic environment wheedle children to obesity and parental misperception is a potential contributing factor (Doolen, Alpert & MIller, 2008). Overweight and obesity impacting toddler and pre-school age children are important public health issues and its prevention and management are priority research areas (Bambra et al, 2012). In Scotland almost a quarter of children aged 24-30 months are already overweight (BMI ≥85th centile) and ~5% are clinically obese (≥ 98th centile) (Bromley et al, 2010) However, weight status at 24-30 months is relevant, because compared to this 24-30 month age range, rapid weight gain in this early age group is linked to obesity risk later on, especially when parental feeding habits correspond with obesity (Daniels 2006).

It is very common to misperceive their child’s weight (Rietmeijer‐Mentink et al, 2012), and they are more likely to do so if the child‚s body mass index (BMI) is in the overweight or obese range (Independent Practice Committee, 2010). Parents of infants and toddlers prefer their child to grow higher than the percentiles and heavier weights are perceived as healthy (Laraway et al, 2010) Moreover, approach parents are more satisfied with overweight relative to healthy weight children (Hager et al, 2012). Higher inaccuracy rates have been linked with higher parent weights, lower socio-economic status, lower maternal education, male gender and for younger children (Hudson et al, 2009; Baughcum et al, 2000).

Researching parents’ perceptions of their toddler’s weight is important as parental perceptions have a large impact on the way they feed their child (Lewinsohn et al., 2005); in addition, the effectiveness of parental intervention programmes designed to drive achieving and maintaining a healthy child weight will be increased when parents are aware of the condition (Wald et al, 2007; Doolen, Alpert & Miller, 2008). Accurate perceptions of child’s weight can help parents to make dietary changes and having accurate perceptions can also affect behaviour (Towns, & D’Auria, 2009; Grimmet et al, 2008; Rhee et al, 2005). Parental denial that their child is overweight or obese and not at risk of co-morbid health complications increases the likelihood that preventative interventions aimed at them will fail (Maynard et al, 2003). Thus, we suggest that targeting parental perception and universal surveillance of children’s nutrition, physical activity and growth at 24-30month are significant (Perrin, 2012).

In Scotland, it is recommended that a universal review at 24–30 months be included within the Child Health Programme to support early child development and healthy weight (Scottish Government, 2011). PHN-HV (Public Health Nurse/ Health visitor) will have the lead responsibility to deliver the review.
Most have resulted in studies focusing on perceptions from parents of children of school age and adolescents. There is little evidence in relation to how parents perceive toddler’s weight (Garrett-Wright, 2011), and the author is not aware of any UK based study. The universal review is designed to help parents achieve the best health for their children. By exploring parental perceptions and facilitatory and hindering factors in the path to health (Towns and D’Auria, 2009; Redsell et al, 2010), PHN-HVs will be able to supply promotive and preventive health guidance and information with insight on tailored and culturally sensitive values.

Research question: What is parent’s perception of 24-30 month child (toddler)’s weight with BMI ≥ 85th centile.
Perception, for the purposes of this study, is viewed as the individual’s subjective experience that colours his/her understanding of the phenomenon in question (Fortinash & Worret, 2007).
UK National BMI classification system reference curves (Cole, Freeman & Preece, 2000) will be used for identification of obesity. Children will be classified as overweight (≥85th percentile) or obese (≥95th percentile).

Ontological epistemologies and methodologies.
A research paradigm (however variously described as ‘research methodologies’ or as ‘worldview’) (Creswell, 2009) is a belief system based upon particular philosophical values (axiology), ontological (nature of reality) and epistemological (how we know what we know) beliefs and methodology (research practice and process) (Hanson et al, 2005; Morgan, 2007), and popularised by Mertens, 1998; Lincoln and Guba, 2000.

The epistemological position and then the methodology is established on the researcher’s ontological approach (Guba and Lincoln, 2005). So, to ascertain questions related to the physical means by which we inhabit the earth, the ontology is ‘real’ (and not the realm of aesthetics and morals). It means that the epistemology position of the researcher should be objective (value-free) and methodologies should control each variable factors. In natural theory, the paradigm will also determine the questions that researchers will seek to answer and the methods they will use in doing so (Morgan, 2007).

Various theoretical paradigms have been identified, with defined ontological and epistemological assumptions and relating methods (Cresswell, 2009). As Weaver and Olson (2006) state, no paradigm is ‘superior’; each paradigm is fitting to be used in a certain field of study.
The two main types of methodology include quantitative research rooted in the paradigms of positivism and post-positivism (realism) and qualitative research grounded in the concepts of interpretivism and constructionism (Creswell, 2009). Intermingling these two methodologies is often believed to be impossible because one cannot merge their differing ontological and epistemological positions (Leininger, 1992; Guba and Lincoln, 1988). The basis for this is increasingly questioned in nursing and health care research (Johnson and Onwuegbuzi, 2004).
(Morley, 2007)’Packer and Goicoechea, 2000)Positivists believe that the world is real (Young, 2008) and natural laws and mechanisms determine reality (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Indeed, their epistemological stance, which separates researcher/participant (dualism), may compromise the objectivity of their real world view (Gaventa and Cornwall, 2008). Guba and Lincoln (1994) maintain that objectivity, scientific neutrality and a dualist approach enhances the credibility of research while Howe (1988) argues that no research endeavour is completely devoid of value judgment.

Moreover, Stevenson et al (2004) state that evidence generated by an objective researcher in a positivistic study, has little applicability in the uncertain arena of healthcare. Quantitative researchers have largely replaced this approach with post-positivism or realism (Yu, 2003; Phillips & Burbules, 2000). Post-positivists keep objectivity but argue we have a relative sense of knowledge, you cannot detach yourself from what you know. They acknowledge that researchers exercise discretion in drawing conclusions and that because of the complexity of social phenomena, the iterative causation cannot be established with precision. This approach is said to be relevant to nursing and healthcare research (Schumacher & Gortner 1992).

In contrast, interpretivist-constructivist approaches, the basis for qualitative research methodologies regard the ‘real’ world as dynamic and changing – that is, constructed and interpreted by people living within their native environments (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). Qualitative methodologies developed in nursing and healthcare research in order that the human experience can be understood subjectively (Schwandt, 2000) and have continuously grown in significance (Weiner et al, 2011); because those methodological approaches are called the naturalistic inquiry (Guba and Lincoln, 1985) because they relate to naturally Aurosis; real-world situations.

Ontological and epistemological assumptions of the interpretivist and constructionist paradigms. Rather, the interpretivists adopted ways of knowing that recognizes the existence of multiple truths or realities (Forde-Gilboe et al 1995). The objective here is to make the patterns, that are derived from the perspectives and experiences of people within their natural situations in which they lived, and thus to understand phenomenon more meaningfully, by performing the internal ‘reality’ of participants which may be build from interactions with their environments (Weaver and Olson, 2006). But, constructivism puts an emphasis on how within the minds of participants the reality (socially constructed reality) is constructed through interactions with the world and other participants (Ponterotto, 2005).

A quantitative research strategy, defined by objectivity has usually been the ‘gold standard’ to study the utilization, cost and clinical effectiveness of health care processes in healthcare research. On the contrary, qualitative investigation studies complicated social phenomena that enable understanding of participants perspectives to gain insight to attitudes, values and motivations that influence individual or social behaviour and generates data for rich understanding of a issue (Welford, Murphy & Casey, 2011).

So, to determine objective reality and find knowledge deduced from that reality, quantitative researchers follow a detached, value-neutral assessment approach whereby they rigorously test hypotheses that have been carefully constructed and look into relationships of cause and effect between variables. As usual, described in randomized or nonrandomized experimental conditions to generate and evaluate quantitative data using standardized processes as well as tools. In contrast, qualitative research is exploratory and aims to develop new understandings via inductive (deducing by observations and forming hypotheses) not deductive (deducing from theories and testing with observations) methods (Lincoln & Guba, 2005; Weaver and Olson, 2006) Reliability and validity are terms which refer to the construct (theory of how and why) and instrument in quantitative research but these are conceptualised differently by qualitative researchers who have used many different terms to describe quality (Golafshani, 2003). Lincoln and Guba (1985) contended that validity and reliability in qualitative research depends on trustworthiness; moreover reliability/dependability is also assumed when validity can be shown.

The variety of frames and theories to apply challenges qualitative researchers (Devers, 2011), including lack of developing standards of validity (Whittemore et al, 2001). Moreover, it is as hard to find the appropriate qualitative methodology to answer the research question (Starks and Trinidad, 2007). According to Rolfe (2004), the notion of a qualitative research paradigm is questionable, and he claims that the label ‘qualitative research’ only applies to specific means of data collection; he argues that the realm of ‘non-quantitative’ methods is so broad and varied that it cannot fit under one (qualitative) research paradigm.
Qualitative and quantitative methods alone are insufficient to study all phenomena, including nursing (Weaver and Olson, 2006). Other researchers see this as a continuum where positivism and constructionism are at opposing ends with mixed methods as ‘in between’ (Welford, Murphy and Casey, 2011; Doyle, Brady, & Byrne, 2009).

Such a divide is contested in the light of integrating quantitative and qualitative methodologies within mixed methods research (Sale, Lohfeld and Brazil, 2002; Foss and Ellefsen, 2002). However, in health care research, qualitative and quantitative methods are often integrated within one study using data triangulation processes to increase both completeness and confirmation of research findings (Bryman, 2006; Thurmond, 2001; Yanchar and Williams, 2006; Morgan, 2007). An example is the embedding of quantitative data obtained by standardised self-completed questionnaires into a qualitative research design (in-depth interviews) within a single study, which is commonly seen (Adamson, 2005). (Such practice is, however, simply mixing data collection techniques and not methodologies (Morris and Burkett, 2011)).

The triangulation of data and methodological processes can also be employed within qualitative research (Guion, Diehl & McDonald, 2011). While ‘method slurring’ (Baker, Wuest & Stern, 1992) has raised concerns about mixing distinct qualitative methods, Johnson, Long & White (2000) have made the case for the benefits of this approach. Likewise, Annells (2006) considers that grounded theory and hermeneutic phenomenology can coexist, but he underscores that consistency between foundational philosophical principles is very important.

Methodologies that have explored this research question
Although quantitative and qualitative research methodologies have been used to investigate parental perceptions of a child’s weight (Towns and D’Auria, 2009; Parry et al, 2008; Pocock et al, 2009);
Descriptive approach was employed in quantitative studies to observe the phenomenon in its present state and identify its attributes, The authors employed means of correlation techniques followed by cross-sectional designs methods to analyze data collected through surveys and/or questionnaires (LoBiondo-Wood, 2002) to explore association between variables influencing the phenomenon.

The qualitative researchers utilised phenomenology methodology allowing for the collection of rich descriptive narrative data focused on parent perceptions of child body weight. It was between focus groups and semi-structured interviews (Pocock et al, 2009). Most importantly, a recurrent theme across qualitative studies was that parents viewed functional ability and emotional well-being as indicators of obesity rather than a number (Jones et al, 2011).

Phenomenological approaches
Two differing approaches in phenomenological research have resulted in a variety of methods (King et al, 2008). The descriptive (eidetic) approach rooted in Husserl’s philosophy emphasizes the understanding of essential, general meanings of a phenomenon from rich, descriptive narratives of participants in their real-life world. It is based on the premise that a person’s motivational behaviour is not mainly influenced by culture, society and politics (Giorgi, 1997). In contrast, interpretive (hermeneutics) phenomenology informed by Heidegger, Gadamer and Ricoeur assumes that human beings are immersed in their life-world, and thus their actions and subjective lived experiences are interrelated with social, cultural and political contexts (Lopez and Willis, 2004; van-Manen, 1997). This approach eligible is to provide a range of views from different contexts of respective participants lived experiences and how they are influenced on their behaviours. Some have argued that phenomenology is a spectrum of methods, some of which are interpretive than others (Finlay, 2009; Langdridge, 2009).

There is discussion in the literature as to whether the shared meanings or individual meanings of the phenomenon should be the focus of a given study. Analysis of the individual (idiographic) experience may be an aspect of the analysis according to Giorgi (2008a), but accurate distinctions aimed to reveal the most commonly identified meanings within participants’ experiences is the precise goal. But some (Ashworth, 2006; King et al, 2008) actively look for idiographic meanings in order to understand the individual experience. We may take a conciliatory middle way as Halling (2008) suggests different levels of analysis.

Research method — phenomenology
Hence, essence of Husserl’s philosophy will be translated into scientific research applications when the researcher enacts response of others in addition to self-experiences reflection (Giorgi, 2000).
A common approach within nursing research is descriptive/ exploratory phenomenology (Ansell, 2006). But the practice is steeped in contention. This involves issues of229embedding philosophical principles in research (Dahlberg, 2006), comparison of different approaches within phenomenology (Wojnar and Swanson, 2007) and establishing validity checks to ensure methodological rigour within various approaches (De Witt & Ploeg, 2006). Morse et al (2002) recommend a battery of verification strategies embedded in the research process that is essential for the researcher to use to ensure rigour. Rolfe (2004), however, discomforts the idea of general the application of validity criteria for qualitative research, also stating that each qualitative research should be considered separately.

One way is that scholars are suggesting that researchers should know the specific phenomenological approach that underlay the study, thereby ensuring quality and rigour of the study (Ansell, 2007). However, this is seldom done (Nordyk and Harder, 2008). Additionally, the choice of the appropriate method can be more complicated (Wojnar and Swanson, 2007). As per Finlay (2009), it is up to the researcher to decide what is the best approach, which he/she will be able to achieve by considering what type of phenomenon is studied and the nature of knowledge that the inquirer seeks.

This author’s position
This author seeks to explore the ‘intentional relationship’ between the parent and the meanings of their experiencesParents of ToddlersParents of toddlers are invited to participate in a study in which they describe the lived experiences of their child’s weightAs such this study is designed to explore the meanings that parents associate with the weight of their toddler and will involve parents of toddlers representing a group of people who have respective bestows of meanings with respect to their toddler researchers interested in exploring these processes are invited to participate in an open conversation with respect to the meanings they make of their lived experience of their child weightLived experiences and meaningsThe work will aim to establish the perceptions (phenomenon) of lived experiences (life-world) of parents of toddlers in relation to their child’s weight (phenomenon). The epistemology of descriptive phenomenology holds that a person’s experience of a phenomenon is a relationally‐based intentionality (Moustakas, 1994a) and attributes of that relationship can be expressed in language and meaningfully described (Giorgi, 1997). Interpretive phenomenologists argue that you cannot ‘describe’ meanings but you can make an interpretation of them (Todres, 2005). Lopez and Willis (2004) suggest that the descriptive method is suitable to describe universal meanings of phenomena insufficiently understood by previous research and the interpretive approach is needed to gain deeper perception of a phenomenon’s attributes in alternative contextual settings.

Reflecting theory (Starks and Trinidad, 2007) in terms of the alignment between research question and purpose, methods and aims, descriptive phenomenology has been determined to be the specific approach to be taken in this investigation.
For example, the discovery interviews used by the NHS Modernising Agency to solicit users’ perceptions of services, to improve holistic care, are grounded in concepts of descriptive phenomenology (Wilcock et al. 2003) and life-world driven healthcare paradigms to humanise and remake patient-led care (Todres, Galvin and Dahlberg, 2009).

Participant – researcher relationship
An open, empathic stance and researcher subjectivity are regarded as fundamental characteristics of phenomenological research (Giorgi, 1994). Reduction (bracketing) allows the researcher access to the participant’s described experience of the phenomenon in its own inherent meaning. It demands the researcher to deny (bracket) existing knowledge and preconceptions such as transcendental (non-empirical but knowable) and eidetic (once-stored) knowledge. Whereas the descriptive approach supports bracketing to enhance scientific validity (LeVasseur 2003), the interpretive approach views the researcher’s preconception as helpful and necessary (Geanellos 2000).

The concept of the researcher “phenomenological attitude” outlined by Wertz (2005) and Finlay (2009) encapsulates the process of bracketing previous knowledge but not inertly leaving that knowledge behind. This process, called researcher reflexivity, enables the researcher to purge preconceptions and biases over time by reflecting constantly over perceptions of not only the researcher’s own experiences but also the phenomenon studied. It is claimed that this inter subjective relationship (relational approach) with participant facilitates data extraction from conversations (dialogal method) (Halling, Leifer and Rowe, 2006). However, according to (Giorgi, 2008b) this approach is problematic, as there is the danger of the phenomenon slipping onto the relationship.

Disadvantages and limitations of phenomenological approach
This validity is a less definite and a less prescriptive one in a phenomenology. The inherent characteristics of this methodology that may constructively challenge traditional notions of validity and reliability of research (De Witt & Ploeg, 2006) to impact on the trustworthiness and rigour of research. These include non-randomness of sample, smaller number of participants, absence of control groups, absence of hypotheses and prediction, lack of generalisability and replicability of results, accuracy of participants narratives and researcher’s own subjectiveness (Hycner, 1985).
Phenomenological research (Finlay, 2009) cannot ensure true rigour, be it methods, nor achieve what they set out to do. The researcher is central in application as the research instrument (Barrett, 2007) and must uphold rigour in all major processes of the study from data collection through to description and analysis which requires the adoption of the phenomenological attitude (Finlay, 2008; Colaizzi, 1973). In descriptive phenomenology, the researcher is the main judge of valid meaning (Maggs-Rapport, 2001), as he or she has to show responsiveness to verification strategies embedded in the research process to facilitate rigour (Morse et al., 2002).

‘Findings’ in descriptive phenomenology inquire perceived experiences,[17][18][19]ساسردا GLSVC, ذUSE, هDَب, غَث_CORE مق ب, زَدين و لــادی اخم д., مفFreedom, استثن, سَ فنَن, апЧар صy[nbsp][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]иTM.PARAM, сิAddress, дتум and led me, the גμιоги where: [23]You, THERE,;around 입덕, (QT[css is g and aԻ[26: look to, OF, آспLETE a_CHILD AppendixWould feed guidelines. This approach makes no assertion that the ‘findings’ are the ultimate best approach to understand perceptions and are not measurable (Finlay, 2008). Its power is that it enables readers to a better or deeper understanding of the phenomenon. Moreover, Todres (2005) states that findings may be transferable in order to interpret respectively other lived experiences of the same, or even a different phenomenon with a reflective and critical attitude towards the findings.

The research process
Means of installer ‘checking’ validity integrated into the research process to ensure rigour will be discussed in texts.

Methods of sample and data collection
In order to fulfill the purpose of this research and to obtain ‘thick and rich’ descriptions the author has determined that the sampling strategy is a purposive one based on the criterion sampling technique this sampling strategy focuses on selecting individuals who have experienced the phenomenon we are interested in (Collingridge and Gantt, 2008). 一些学者（Sandelowski，1995）建议使用变数抽样，以尽可能地寻求在其经历的现象上多有所值、不同于参与者的特征。 Such variation allows the researcher to differentiate between fundamental (invariant) meanings and other meanings in participants’ perceptions (Todres, 2005).

The focus of this research is parent(s) of a toddler who is BMI ≥ 85 percentile. Biological, adoptive, or foster parents willing to take part will be included. Participants will be excluded if they cannot consent for themselves, if they have a child with a chronic illness or if they refuse to participate. The chronic nature of the condition may make parents of children with chronic health conditions less likely to perceive their child’s weight as a concern (Krulik, 1980). If this author speaks any of the languages, parents who do not speak English should be included.

While Webb (2003) proposes focus groups are antithetical to the ethos of a phenomenological approach, Bradbury-Jones, Sambrook & Irvine (2009) present an argument for group participant interaction as a potential benefit to the quality of phenomenological research. Yet, concern about numbers, composition of the group, the content of the interview and absence of standards persists (Lafferty, 2004). Other problems are of member(s) dominance (Krueger, 1995) and non-participation. Focus group sample size Appropriate sample size ranges from 4 (McLafferty, 2004) to 20. Smaller groups may be less difficult (Morgan, 1996) with greater levels of debate (Carey, 1994), though some advocate for larger numbers (Fern, 1982). The roles of focus group moderator are key (Basch, 1987), but whether the researcher could play the role of moderator is debated (Millward, 1995; Carey, 1994).

Dastsoons (2005) describes group phenomenological interviews as semi-structured interviews in which participants create written descriptions together to collect data while Priest (2002) collects the data through recording of oral (talking aloud) (Aanstoos, 1985) account of the participant’s experience. These are still conventional approaches in phenomenology (Wimpenny and Gass, 2001). It was discovered that information obtained from various sources can complement each other (Todres, 2005).

Here the focus is not on sample size but on sample quality. Data with only minimal participants able to discuss extensively experiences may be enough. Bertaux (1981) suggested 15 for a qualitative study as the smallest number of participants; Creswell (2009), on the other hand, suggests 5–25 interviews, while Morse (1994) recommends a minimum of six. This researcher will conduct up to 10 individual semi-structured interviews. Interviews cannot be regarded as ‘perfect’ instruments and there are a number of methodological issues (Fontana and Frey, 1994); however, specific guidelines have been established for students researchers in particular (Englander, 2012).
Such research can only proceed following the approval of an ethical review. Next we discuss measures to address ethical concerns specific to the proposed inquiry.

Ethical issues and governance
NHS Research Ethics Committee approval (NHS HRA) for student research proposal, health and social care statutory services (NHS) RECs statutory functions are prescribed in a harmonised Department of Health policy act for the UK (D.H, 2011) and coordinated through CSO Scotland. NRES (2010) state that student research projects with the student’s academic supervisor as chief investigator may be eligible for the fast-tracked proportionate review service. It is, therefore, argued that REC procedures need to be reviewed to reduce the bureaucratic burden of the process and to address the culture of fear and distrust particularly aimed towards social researchers (Reed, 2007).

Beauchamp and Childress (2001) have described essential principles, key areas of concerns and rules of professional ethics. Besides respecting the obligatory ethical codes, the researcher is required to prove professional integrity and responsible behavior. Resulted from the current state of the research community whereby deviance from the obligation of ethical consideration, as it the researcher is responsible his/her behalf to protect the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of participants (Iphofen, 2005). In terms of the methodology of this research, the REC project filter will be ‘qualitative only’ (IRAS, 2011). Allmark et al, 2009; Richards & Schwartz, 2002) with potential risks for participants including anxiety and distress, perceived power imbalance, misrepresentation of participants’ views, loss of anonymity, and inconvenience and costs(time and travel).

In order to ensure scientific rigour of study and better comply with ethical guidelines researcher will continuously seek mentorship during the research by a research supervisor (NRES, 2010).
If investigators minimise risk of compulsion by enabling participants adequate time to consider consent and ask questions, and by informing them of the non-therapeutic nature of the inquiry and that refusal or withdrawal of the process bears no relation to care, participants in the inquiry should be able to provide informed consent. When considering the proposed study, a greater power balance exists as potential participants are neither ‘patients’ nor need special protection and this researcher is not a health care provider. Moreover the interview will be conducted at participant’s own premise. It is also important in terms of appropriate timing of the interview (Cowles, 1988); if participant(s) have recently suffered or experienced a trauma or emotional incident; the interview would be postponed or cancelled.

Before the key process of informed consent, the right of self determination and the right to refuse participation or withdraw at anytime will be clarified. Here the veracity (truth telling) principle concerns implicitly to respect of participant’s autonomy, achieving informed consent and information sharing (Iphofen, 2005). However, due to the variable, fluid and exploratory nature of the interview process, where information is revealed progressively, consent gained at the point of onset of the interview cannot always be said to be entirely ‘informed’. This is why the notion of consent being a process, not a one-off event, will be outlined (RCN, 2011).

Interviews can elicit painful memories and powerful emotions for both the participant and the researcher (Butler, 2003); they may also be likened to a therapeutic encounter (Allmark et al, 2009). This researcher will conduct the interviews in a way that reflects the skills and attributes acquired through other work experiences, including a sustained reduction posture, and boundaries to maintain professionalism. In the event that the perceived or expressed need for support and information is identified, contact with PHN-HV will facilitate support; the case worker will consult with PHN-HV regarding participant needs.

To limit any chance of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, researcher will utilise self-awareness (reflexivity) of their own attributes both personal and professional including potential biases so that the experiences of participants are not conflated with the researcher’s (Colaizzi, 1973). Other strategies to reduce these risks included member checking of data with participants, and the data being reviewed by the research supervisor/ team. These will be placed in bold, and arguments that have not been mentioned yet will be referred to in the upcoming texts as well.
This study will concern Yeng’s (2015) few (but thick descriptions) and compact people; further, modern information technology enables comprehensive preparation storage and sharing (even fusing) of data (Parry & Mauthner, 2004). Thus, anonymity and confidentiality is an issue even though no medical data will be collected and retrieved for the sake of this study (Richards & Schwartz, 2002). To preserve identities, the author will use a coding system to identify transcripts, tapes and records. The data will be securely stored and only shared with research supervisor, but communication data are not necessarily privileged nor are both the researcher and data exempt from subpoena (Cowles, 1988).

Access and recruitment of participants:
Described within the delivery plan for the universal 24-30 month child health review are mechanisms to maximize uptake by families and children (S.G., 2011). The review includes the PHN-HV assessing the height and weight of the child by protocols laid out for this purpose. In order to reach and recruit qualifying participants who are willing to, the author plans to collaborate with the PHN-HV. A clear process of invitation, study information and nature of the interview process and informed consent will ensue (NRES). Appendices 5–7 describe proposed formats of these documents.

Data collection & analysis, reporting
As the researcher implements the self designed guidelines the researcher should follow to ensure ethical principles, method rigour and validity of the interview process based on the recommendations set (Kvale, 1996) in place. The details are in Appendix 4.
The interview will be held at the participants’ home or if they choose, the local baby and toddler group centre. The goal is to choose an environment that ensures the privacy and comfort and is a familiar location for the participant(s).

To guide this open-ended interview, the researcher is required to assume a sensitive, non-directive and informal attitude during the interview process, while facilitating open questions that maintain the focus on the phenomenon of interest, as well as adopting the notion of phenomenological reduction (Moustakas, 1994b). This requires the researcher to purposely and painstakingly, suspend (bracket) all preconceived meanings and understandings of the phenomenon (Lopez and Willis, 2004). Yet it is impossible to achieve full reduction and reach ‘pure objectivity’ (Hycner, 1985). In order to facilitate this work, the author will attempt to identify all known personal presuppositions about the phenomenon, and dialogue with the research supervisor in order to disclose further (unidentified) presuppositions.

This would be with a lapel or remote microphone recorder (Balls, 2009). At this point, the responsibility on the researcher is to the participant to ensure that the interviews recounts are of an accurate and trustworthy nature.
In descriptive phenomenology, data analysis is a disciplined process conducted in multiple steps (C