4.6 Article

Predictors of Measurement Error in Energy Intake During Pregnancy

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 173, Issue 5, Pages 560-568

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq402

Keywords

bias (epidemiology); diet; energy intake; nutrition assessment; obesity; pregnancy

Funding

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  3. National Cancer Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nutrition plays a critical role in maternal and fetal health; however, research on error in the measurement of energy intake during pregnancy is limited. The authors analyzed data on 998 women living in central North Carolina with singleton pregnancies during 2001-2005. Second-trimester diet was assessed by food frequency questionnaire. Estimated energy requirements were calculated using Institute of Medicine prediction equations, with adjustment for energy costs during the second trimester. Implausible values for daily energy intake were determined using confidence limits of agreement for energy intake/estimated energy requirements. Prevalences of low energy reporting (LER) and high energy reporting (HER) were 32.8% and 12.9%, respectively. In a multivariable analysis, pregravid body mass index was related to both LER and HER; LER was higher in both overweight (odds ratio = 1.96, 95% confidence interval: 1.26, 3.02; P = 0.031) and obese (odds ratio = 3.29, 95% confidence interval: 2.33, 4.65; P < 0.001) women than in normal-weight counterparts. Other predictors of LER included marriage and higher levels of physical activity. HER was higher among subjects who were underweight, African-American, and less educated and subjects who had higher depressive symptom scores. LER and HER are prevalent during pregnancy. Identifying their predictors may improve data collection and analytic methods for reducing systematic bias in the study of diet and reproductive outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available