TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires
AU - Ishii, Yuri
AU - Ishihara, Junko
AU - Takachi, Ribeka
AU - Shinozawac, Yurie
AU - Imaeda, Nahomi
AU - Goto, Chiho
AU - Wakai, Kenji
AU - Takahashi, Toshiaki
AU - Iso, Hiroyasu
AU - Nakamura, Kazutoshi
AU - Tanaka, Junta
AU - Shimazu, Taichi
AU - Yamaji, Taiki
AU - Sasazuki, Shizuka
AU - Sawada, Norie
AU - Iwasaki, Motoki
AU - Mikami, Haruo
AU - Kuriki, Kiyonori
AU - Naito, Mariko
AU - Okamoto, Naoko
AU - Kondo, Fumi
AU - Hosono, Satoyo
AU - Miyagawa, Naoko
AU - Ozaki, Etsuko
AU - Katsuura-Kamano, Sakurako
AU - Ohnaka, Keizo
AU - Nanri, Hinako
AU - Tsunematsu-Nakahata, Noriko
AU - Kayama, Takamasa
AU - Kurihara, Ayako
AU - Kojima, Shiomi
AU - Tanaka, Hideo
AU - Tsugane, Shoichiro
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Authors.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Dietary assessment method
KW - Dietary records
KW - Standardization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021803654&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021803654&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.je.2016.08.008
DO - 10.1016/j.je.2016.08.008
M3 - Article
C2 - 28302344
AN - SCOPUS:85021803654
SN - 0917-5040
VL - 27
SP - 331
EP - 337
JO - Journal of epidemiology
JF - Journal of epidemiology
IS - 7
ER -