Dataset Information

Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although open-ended dietary assessment methods, such as weighed food records (WFRs), are generally considered to be comparable, differences between procedures may influence outcome when WFRs are conducted independently. In this paper, we assess the procedures of WFRs in two studies to describe their dietary assessment procedures and compare the subsequent outcomes.

Methods

WFRs of 12 days (3 days for four seasons) were conducted as reference methods for intake data, in accordance with the study protocol, among a subsample of participants of two large cohort studies. We compared the WFR procedures descriptively. We also compared some dietary intake variables, such as the frequency of foods and dishes and contributing foods, to determine whether there were differences in the portion size distribution and intra- and inter-individual variation in nutrient intakes caused by the difference in procedures.

Results

General procedures of the dietary records were conducted in accordance with the National Health and Nutrition Survey and were the same for both studies. Differences were seen in 1) selection of multiple days (non-consecutive days versus consecutive days); and 2) survey sheet recording method (individual versus family participation). However, the foods contributing to intake of energy and selected nutrients, the portion size distribution, and intra- and inter-individual variation in nutrient intakes were similar between the two studies.

Conclusion

Our comparison of WFR procedures in two independent studies revealed several differences. Notwithstanding these procedural differences, however, the subsequent outcomes were similar.

SUBMITTER: Ishii Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5498406 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires.

Ishii Yuri Y Ishihara Junko J Takachi Ribeka R Shinozawa Yurie Y Imaeda Nahomi N Goto Chiho C Wakai Kenji K Takahashi Toshiaki T Iso Hiroyasu H Nakamura Kazutoshi K Tanaka Junta J Shimazu Taichi T Yamaji Taiki T Sasazuki Shizuka S Sawada Norie N Iwasaki Motoki M Mikami Haruo H Kuriki Kiyonori K Naito Mariko M Okamoto Naoko N Kondo Fumi F Hosono Satoyo S Miyagawa Naoko N Ozaki Etsuko E Katsuura-Kamano Sakurako S Ohnaka Keizo K Nanri Hinako H Tsunematsu-Nakahata Noriko N Kayama Takamasa T Kurihara Ayako A Kojima Shiomi S Tanaka Hideo H Tsugane Shoichiro S

Journal of epidemiology 20170313 7

<h4>Background</h4>Although open-ended dietary assessment methods, such as weighed food records (WFRs), are generally considered to be comparable, differences between procedures may influence outcome when WFRs are conducted independently. In this paper, we assess the procedures of WFRs in two studies to describe their dietary assessment procedures and compare the subsequent outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>WFRs of 12 days (3 days for four seasons) were conducted as reference methods for intake data, in ...[more]

PMID: 28302344

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:More alternatives are needed for recording people's normal diet in different populations, especially adults or the elderly, as part of the investigation into the effects of nutrition on health. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare the estimated values of energy intake, macro- and micronutrient, and alcohol consumption gathered using the EVIDENT II smartphone app against the data estimated with a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) in an adult population aged 18 to 70 years. METHODS:We included 362 individuals (mean age 52 years, SD 12; 214/362, 59.1% women) who were part of the EVIDENT II study. The participants registered their food intake using the EVIDENT app during a period of 3 months and through an FFQ. Both methods estimate the average nutritional composition, including energy intake, macro- and micronutrients, and alcohol. Through the app, the values of the first week of food recording, the first month, and the entire 3-month period were estimated. The FFQ gathers data regarding the food intake of the year before the moment of interview. RESULTS:The intraclass correlation for the estimation of energy intake with the FFQ and the app shows significant results, with the highest values returned when analyzing the app's data for the full 3-month period (.304, 95% CI 0.144-0.434; P<.001). For this period, the correlation coefficient for energy intake is .233 (P<.001). The highest value corresponds to alcohol consumption and the lowest to the intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids (r=.676 and r=.155; P<.001), respectively. The estimation of daily intake of energy, macronutrients, and alcohol presents higher values in the FFQ compared with the EVIDENT app data. Considering the values recorded during the 3-month period, the FFQ for energy intake estimation (Kcal) was higher than that of the app (a difference of 408.7, 95% CI 322.7-494.8; P<.001). The same is true for the other macronutrients, with the exception g/day of saturated fatty acids (.4, 95% CI -1.2 to 2.0; P=.62). CONCLUSIONS:The EVIDENT app is significantly correlated to FFQ in the estimation of energy intake, macro- and micronutrients, and alcohol consumption. This correlation increases with longer app recording periods. The EVIDENT app can be a good alternative for recording food intake in the context of longitudinal or intervention studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02016014; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02016014 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/760i8EL8Q).

Project description:Minimum dietary diversity for women of reproductive age (MDD-W) was validated as a population-level proxy of micronutrient adequacy, with indicator data collection proposed as either list-based or open recall. No study has assessed the validity of these two non-quantitative proxy methods against weighed food records (WFR). We assessed the measurement agreement of list-based and open recall methods as compared to WFR (i.e., reference method of individual quantitative dietary assessment) for achieving MDD-W and an ordinal food group diversity score. Applying a non-inferiority design, data were collected from non-pregnant women of reproductive age in Cambodia (n = 430), Ethiopia (n = 431), and Zambia (n = 476). For the pooled sample (n = 1337), proportions achieving MDD-W from both proxy methods were compared to WFR proportion by McNemar's chi-square tests, Cohen's kappa, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Ordinal food group diversity (0-10) was compared by Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and weighted kappa. MDD-W food groups that were most frequently misreported (i.e., type I and II errors) by the proxy methods were determined. Our findings indicate statistically significant differences in proportions achieving MDD-W, ordinal food group diversity scores, and ROC curves between both proxy methods and WFR (p < 0.001). List-based and open recall methods overreported women achieving MDD-W by 16 and 10 percentage points, respectively, as compared to WFR (proportion achieving MDD-W: 30%). ICC values between list-based or open recall and WFR were 0.50 and 0.55, respectively. Simple and weighted kappa values both indicated moderate agreement between list-based or open recall against WFR. Food groups most likely to be misreported using proxy methods were beans and peas, dark green leafy vegetables, vitamin A-rich fruit and vegetables, and other fruits. Our study provides statistical evidence for overreporting of both list-based and open recall methods for assessing prevalence of MDD-W or ordinal food group diversity score in women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries. Operationalizing MDD-W through qualitative recall methods should consider potential trade-offs between accuracy and simplicity.

Project description:Background:A limited number of studies have evaluated self-reported dietary intakes against objective recovery biomarkers. Objective:The aim was to compare dietary intakes of multiple Automated Self-Administered 24-h recalls (ASA24s), 4-d food records (4DFRs), and food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) against recovery biomarkers and to estimate the prevalence of under- and overreporting. Design:Over 12 mo, 530 men and 545 women, aged 50-74 y, were asked to complete 6 ASA24s (2011 version), 2 unweighed 4DFRs, 2 FFQs, two 24-h urine collections (biomarkers for protein, potassium, and sodium intakes), and 1 administration of doubly labeled water (biomarker for energy intake). Absolute and density-based energy-adjusted nutrient intakes were calculated. The prevalence of under- and overreporting of self-report against biomarkers was estimated. Results:Ninety-two percent of men and 87% of women completed ?3 ASA24s (mean ASA24s completed: 5.4 and 5.1 for men and women, respectively). Absolute intakes of energy, protein, potassium, and sodium assessed by all self-reported instruments were systematically lower than those from recovery biomarkers, with underreporting greater for energy than for other nutrients. On average, compared with the energy biomarker, intake was underestimated by 15-17% on ASA24s, 18-21% on 4DFRs, and 29-34% on FFQs. Underreporting was more prevalent on FFQs than on ASA24s and 4DFRs and among obese individuals. Mean protein and sodium densities on ASA24s, 4DFRs, and FFQs were similar to biomarker values, but potassium density on FFQs was 26-40% higher, leading to a substantial increase in the prevalence of overreporting compared with absolute potassium intake. Conclusions:Although misreporting is present in all self-report dietary assessment tools, multiple ASA24s and a 4DFR provided the best estimates of absolute dietary intakes for these few nutrients and outperformed FFQs. Energy adjustment improved estimates from FFQs for protein and sodium but not for potassium. The ASA24, which now can be used to collect both recalls and records, is a feasible means to collect dietary data for nutrition research.

Dataset Information

Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets