Literature DB >> 19094249

Assessing dietary intake: Who, what and why of under-reporting.

J Macdiarmid1, J Blundell.   

Abstract

Under-reporting of food intake is one of the fundamental obstacles preventing the collection of accurate habitual dietary intake data. The prevalence of under-reporting in large nutritional surveys ranges from 18 to 54% of the whole sample, but can be as high as 70% in particular subgroups. This wide variation between studies is partly due to different criteria used to identify under-reporters and also to non-uniformity of under-reporting across populations. The most consistent differences found are between men and women and between groups differing in body mass index. Women are more likely to under-report than men, and under-reporting is more common among overweight and obese individuals. Other associated characteristics, for which there is less consistent evidence, include age, smoking habits, level of education, social class, physical activity and dietary restraint. Determining whether under-reporting is specific to macronutrients or food is problematic, as most methods identify only low energy intakes. Studies that have attempted to measure under-reporting specific to macronutrients express nutrients as percentage of energy and have tended to find carbohydrate under-reported and protein over-reported. However, care must be taken when interpreting these results, especially when data are expressed as percentages. A logical conclusion is that food items with a negative health image (e.g. cakes, sweets, confectionery) are more likely to be under-reported, whereas those with a positive health image are more likely to be over-reported (e.g. fruits and vegetables). This also suggests that dietary fat is likely to be under-reported. However, it is necessary to distinguish between under-reporting and genuine under-eating for the duration of data collection. The key to understanding this problem, but one that has been widely neglected, concerns the processes that cause people to under-report their food intakes. The little work that has been done has simply confirmed the complexity of this issue. The importance of obtaining accurate estimates of habitual dietary intakes so as to assess health correlates of food consumption can be contrasted with the poor quality of data collected. This phenomenon should be considered a priority research area. Moreover, misreporting is not simply a nutritionist's problem, but requires a multidisciplinary approach (including psychology, sociology and physiology) to advance the understanding of under-reporting in dietary intake studies.

Entities:  

Year:  1998        PMID: 19094249     DOI: 10.1079/NRR19980017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nutr Res Rev        ISSN: 0954-4224            Impact factor:   7.800


  154 in total

1.  Behavioural counselling in general practice about risk of CHD. Study was grossly underpowered.

Authors:  F D Hobbs
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-07-01

2.  Explaining the female black-white obesity gap: a decomposition analysis of proximal causes.

Authors:  David W Johnston; Wang-Sheng Lee
Journal:  Demography       Date:  2011-11

3.  Accuracy of self-reported energy intake in weight-restored patients with anorexia nervosa compared with obese and normal weight individuals.

Authors:  Janet E Schebendach; Kathleen J Porter; Carla Wolper; B Timothy Walsh; Laurel E S Mayer
Journal:  Int J Eat Disord       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 4.861

4.  Candy consumption in childhood is not predictive of weight, adiposity measures or cardiovascular risk factors in young adults: the Bogalusa Heart Study.

Authors:  C E O'Neil; T A Nicklas; Y Liu; G S Berenson
Journal:  J Hum Nutr Diet       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 3.089

5.  Stable isotope models of sugar intake using hair, red blood cells, and plasma, but not fasting plasma glucose, predict sugar intake in a Yup'ik study population.

Authors:  Sarah H Nash; Alan R Kristal; Scarlett E Hopkins; Bert B Boyer; Diane M O'Brien
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 4.798

6.  Diet Quality of Breast Cancer Survivors after a Six-Month Weight Management Intervention: Improvements and Association with Weight Loss.

Authors:  Danielle N Christifano; Tera L Fazzino; Debra K Sullivan; Christie A Befort
Journal:  Nutr Cancer       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 2.900

7.  Discrepancy between implicit and explicit preferences for food portions in obesity.

Authors:  R Cserjesi; I De Vos; N Deroost
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 5.095

8.  Measured versus modeled dietary arsenic and relation to urinary arsenic excretion and total exposure.

Authors:  Margaret Kurzius-Spencer; Mary K O'Rourke; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Vern Hartz; Robin B Harris; Jefferey L Burgess
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 5.563

9.  Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios predict intake of sweeteners in a Yup'ik study population.

Authors:  Sarah H Nash; Alan R Kristal; Andrea Bersamin; Scarlett E Hopkins; Bert B Boyer; Diane M O'Brien
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 4.798

10.  Nutriome-metabolome relationships provide insights into dietary intake and metabolism.

Authors:  Joram M Posma; Isabel Garcia-Perez; Gary Frost; Ghadeer S Aljuraiban; Queenie Chan; Linda Van Horn; Martha Daviglus; Jeremiah Stamler; Elaine Holmes; Paul Elliott; Jeremy K Nicholson
Journal:  Nat Food       Date:  2020-06-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.