BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that diet records are more valid measures of nutrient intake than are food-frequency questionnaires. However, food records are considered unsuitable for large studies due to the need to train participants and to review and correct completed records. METHODS: We evaluated a self-administered 3-day food record protocol in Washington State. One hundred men and women age 50-76 years were mailed a food record and serving-size booklet. Sixty-five people returned a completed food record and were subsequently interviewed to obtain missing information. The food records were analyzed with and without added information from the interview. RESULTS: The most common error was incomplete description, which affected 8% of recorded foods. Differences in mean nutrient intake between the uncorrected and corrected records were within 5%, and nutrient estimates from the 2 methods were highly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: This streamlined protocol yielded data comparable to those collected by more burdensome protocols, suggesting that the use of food records may be feasible in large cohort studies.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that diet records are more valid measures of nutrient intake than are food-frequency questionnaires. However, food records are considered unsuitable for large studies due to the need to train participants and to review and correct completed records. METHODS: We evaluated a self-administered 3-day food record protocol in Washington State. One hundred men and women age 50-76 years were mailed a food record and serving-size booklet. Sixty-five people returned a completed food record and were subsequently interviewed to obtain missing information. The food records were analyzed with and without added information from the interview. RESULTS: The most common error was incomplete description, which affected 8% of recorded foods. Differences in mean nutrient intake between the uncorrected and corrected records were within 5%, and nutrient estimates from the 2 methods were highly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: This streamlined protocol yielded data comparable to those collected by more burdensome protocols, suggesting that the use of food records may be feasible in large cohort studies.
Authors: Raymond J Carroll; Douglas Midthune; Amy F Subar; Marina Shumakovich; Laurence S Freedman; Frances E Thompson; Victor Kipnis Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Thais F Marighela; Patrícia de S Genaro; Marcelo M Pinheiro; Vera L Szejnfeld; Cristiane Kayser Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Marilyn L Kwan; Lawrence H Kushi; Jun Song; Allegra W Timperi; Alanna M Boynton; Karen M Johnson; Judi Standley; Alan R Kristal Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-10-11 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kristina M Utzschneider; Tonya N Johnson; Kara L Breymeyer; Lisa Bettcher; Daniel Raftery; Katherine M Newton; Marian L Neuhouser Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Kendra J Kamp; Kevin C Cain; Angelita Utleg; Robert L Burr; Daniel Raftery; Ruth Ann Luna; Robert J Shulman; Margaret M Heitkemper Journal: Biol Res Nurs Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 2.522
Authors: Ami Tsuchiya; Thomas A Hinners; Finn Krogstad; Jim W White; Thomas M Burbacher; Elaine M Faustman; Koenraad Mariën Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 9.031