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

Yuri Ishii, Junko Ishihara, Ribeka Takachi, Yurie Shinozawac, Nahomi Imaeda, Chiho Goto, Kenji Wakai, Toshiaki Takahashi, Hiroyasu Iso, Kazutoshi Nakamura, Junta Tanaka, Taichi Shimazu, Taiki Yamaji, Shizuka Sasazuki, Norie Sawada, Motoki Iwasaki, Haruo Mikami, Kiyonori Kuriki, Mariko Naito, Naoko OkamotoFumi Kondo, Satoyo Hosono, Naoko Miyagawa, Etsuko Ozaki, Sakurako Katsuura-Kamano, Keizo Ohnaka, Hinako Nanri, Noriko Tsunematsu-Nakahata, Takamasa Kayama, Ayako Kurihara, Shiomi Kojima, Hideo Tanaka, Shoichiro Tsugane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)331-337
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of epidemiology
Volume27
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Jan 1

Keywords

  • Dietary assessment method
  • Dietary records
  • Standardization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Ishii, Y., Ishihara, J., Takachi, R., Shinozawac, Y., Imaeda, N., Goto, C., Wakai, K., Takahashi, T., Iso, H., Nakamura, K., Tanaka, J., Shimazu, T., Yamaji, T., Sasazuki, S., Sawada, N., Iwasaki, M., Mikami, H., Kuriki, K., Naito, M., ... Tsugane, S. (2017). Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires. Journal of epidemiology, 27(7), 331-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.je.2016.08.008