4.5 Article

Vitamin D intakes of children differ by race/ethnicity, sex, age, and income in the United States, 2007 to 2010

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 499-506

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2014.06.002

关键词

Vitamin D; Children's health; Dietary supplements; Nutrition surveys; Poverty income ratio

资金

  1. Texas Woman's University Office of Research & Sponsored Programs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2007-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was used to estimate vitamin D intakes of children 1 to 18 years old in the United States by race/ethnicity, sex, age, and family using 24-hour dietary intake recalls and dietary supplement use questionnaires. We hypothesized that total, dietary, and supplemental vitamin D intakes of children would differ by race/ethnicity, sex, age, and income. Statistical analyses of weighted data were performed using Statistical Analysis Software (V 9.2) to estimate means +/- SE. Race and ethnic intake differences controlling for poverty income ratio (PIR), sex, and age were assessed by analysis of covariance. Total (dietary and supplement) vitamin D intake was greater in the high (7.9 +/- 0.3 mu g/d) vs the medium (6.5 +/- 0.3 mu g/d) income group, but not the low (7.2 +/- 0.2 mu g/d) PIR group. Total vitamin D intake of non-Hispanic (NH) white children (8.1 +/- 0.2 mu g/d) was greater than Hispanic (7.0 +/- 0.2 mu g/d) and NH black (5.9 +/- 0.2 mu g/d) children. Total vitamin D intake declined with age, and intake by boys was higher than girls. Only 17.4% of the children consumed supplements containing vitamin D. Overall, mean intake of vitamin D by all children in each age and ethnic group was lower than the estimated average requirement for vitamin D. Public health efforts should encourage consumption of foods high in vitamin D, expand the number of foods fortified, and target health messages to parents to increase use of vitamin D supplements by children. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据