4.7 Article

Validation of a Dish-Based Semiquantitative Food Questionnaire in Rural Bangladesh

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu9010049

关键词

food frequency questionnaire; food diary; duplicate food sample; validation study; adult male equivalent; Bangladesh

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health [ES 011622, ES 05947, ES 00002]
  2. Talent Promotion Project of the Research Center of Environmental Medicine at Kaohsiung Medical University, Taiwan [KMUTP105A00]
  3. [K24HD069408]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A locally validated tool was needed to evaluate long-term dietary intake in rural Bangladesh. We assessed the validity of a 42-item dish-based semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) using two 3-day food diaries (FDs). We selected a random subset of 47 families (190 participants) from a longitudinal arsenic biomonitoring study in Bangladesh to administer the FFQ. Two 3-day FDs were completed by the female head of the households and we used an adult male equivalent method to estimate the FD for the other participants. Food and nutrient intakes measured by FFQ and FD were compared using Pearson's and Spearman's correlation, paired t-test, percent difference, cross-classification, weighted Kappa, and Bland-Altman analysis. Results showed good validity for total energy intake (paired t-test, p < 0.05; percent difference < 10%), with no presence of proportional bias (Bland-Altman correlation, p > 0.05). After energy-adjustment and de-attenuation for within-person variation, macronutrient intakes had excellent correlations ranging from 0.55 to 0.70. Validity for micronutrients was mixed. High intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were found for most nutrients between the two seasons, except vitamin A. This dish-based FFQ provided adequate validity to assess and rank long-term dietary intake in rural Bangladesh for most food groups and nutrients, and should be useful for studying dietary-disease relationships.

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

4.7
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