Emily Oken1, Lauren B Guthrie1, Arienne Bloomingdale1, Matthew W Gillman1, Sjurdur F Olsen2, Chitra J Amarasiriwardena3, Deborah N Platek4, David C Bellinger5, Robert O Wright5. 1. 1Department of Population Medicine,Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute,133 Brookline Avenue,Boston,MA 02215,USA. 2. 2Department of Nutrition,Harvard School of Public Health,Boston,MA,USA. 3. 3Department of Environmental Health,Harvard School of Public Health,Boston,MA,USA. 4. 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates,Boston,MA,USA. 5. 5Children's Hospital Boston,Boston,MA,USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fish consumption influences a number of health outcomes. Few studies have directly compared dietary assessment methods to determine the best approach to estimating intakes of fish and its component nutrients, including DHA, and toxicants, including methylmercury. Our objective was to compare three methods of assessing fish intake. DESIGN: We assessed 30 d fish intake using three approaches: (i) a single question on total fish consumption; (ii) a brief comprehensive FFQ that included four questions about fish; and (iii) a focused FFQ with thirty-six questions about different finfish and shellfish. SETTING: Obstetrics practices in Boston, MA, USA. SUBJECTS:Fifty-nine pregnant women who consumed ≤2 monthly fish servings. RESULTS: Estimated intakes of fish, DHA and Hg were lowest with the one-question screener and highest with the thirty-six-item fish questionnaire. Estimated intake of DHA with the thirty-six-item questionnaire was 4·4-fold higher (97 v. 22 mg/d), and intake of Hg was 3·8-fold higher (1·6 v. 0·42 μg/d), compared with the one-question screener. Plasma DHA concentration was correlated with fish intake assessed with the one-question screener (Spearman r = 0·27, P = 0·04), but not with the four-item FFQ (r = 0·08, P = 0·54) or the thirty-six-item fish questionnaire (r = 0·01, P = 0·93). In contrast, blood and hairHg concentrations were similarly correlated with fish and Hg intakes regardless of the assessment method (r = 0·35 to 0·52). CONCLUSIONS: A longer questionnaire provides no advantage over shorter questionnaires in ranking intakes of fish, DHA and Hg compared with biomarkers, but estimates of absolute intakes can vary by as much as fourfold across methods.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Fish consumption influences a number of health outcomes. Few studies have directly compared dietary assessment methods to determine the best approach to estimating intakes of fish and its component nutrients, including DHA, and toxicants, including methylmercury. Our objective was to compare three methods of assessing fish intake. DESIGN: We assessed 30 d fish intake using three approaches: (i) a single question on total fish consumption; (ii) a brief comprehensive FFQ that included four questions about fish; and (iii) a focused FFQ with thirty-six questions about different finfish and shellfish. SETTING: Obstetrics practices in Boston, MA, USA. SUBJECTS: Fifty-nine pregnant women who consumed ≤2 monthly fish servings. RESULTS: Estimated intakes of fish, DHA and Hg were lowest with the one-question screener and highest with the thirty-six-item fish questionnaire. Estimated intake of DHA with the thirty-six-item questionnaire was 4·4-fold higher (97 v. 22 mg/d), and intake of Hg was 3·8-fold higher (1·6 v. 0·42 μg/d), compared with the one-question screener. Plasma DHA concentration was correlated with fish intake assessed with the one-question screener (Spearman r = 0·27, P = 0·04), but not with the four-item FFQ (r = 0·08, P = 0·54) or the thirty-six-item fish questionnaire (r = 0·01, P = 0·93). In contrast, blood and hair Hg concentrations were similarly correlated with fish and Hg intakes regardless of the assessment method (r = 0·35 to 0·52). CONCLUSIONS: A longer questionnaire provides no advantage over shorter questionnaires in ranking intakes of fish, DHA and Hg compared with biomarkers, but estimates of absolute intakes can vary by as much as fourfold across methods.
Authors: F B Hu; E Rimm; S A Smith-Warner; D Feskanich; M J Stampfer; A Ascherio; L Sampson; W C Willett Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Susan E Schober; Thomas H Sinks; Robert L Jones; P Michael Bolger; Margaret McDowell; John Osterloh; E Spencer Garrett; Richard A Canady; Charles F Dillon; Yu Sun; Catherine B Joseph; Kathryn R Mahaffey Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-04-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frank B Hu; Leslie Bronner; Walter C Willett; Meir J Stampfer; Kathryn M Rexrode; Christine M Albert; David Hunter; JoAnn E Manson Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-04-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: W C Willett; L Sampson; M J Stampfer; B Rosner; C Bain; J Witschi; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1985-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Emily Oken; Jenny S Radesky; Robert O Wright; David C Bellinger; Chitra J Amarasiriwardena; Ken P Kleinman; Howard Hu; Matthew W Gillman Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Emily Oken; Ken P Kleinman; Sjurdur F Olsen; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Matthew W Gillman Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: A W Turunen; S Männistö; H Kiviranta; J Marniemi; A Jula; P Tiittanen; L Suominen-Taipale; T Vartiainen; P K Verkasalo Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Emily Oken; Lauren B Guthrie; Arienne Bloomingdale; Deborah N Platek; Sarah Price; Jess Haines; Matthew W Gillman; Sjurdur F Olsen; David C Bellinger; Robert O Wright Journal: Nutr J Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Renata H Benjamin; Laura E Mitchell; Mark A Canfield; Adrienne T Hoyt; Dejian Lai; Tunu A Ramadhani; Suzan L Carmichael; Amy P Case; D Kim Waller Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Alison P Sanders; Heather H Burris; Allan C Just; Valeria Motta; Chitra Amarasiriwardena; Katherine Svensson; Emily Oken; Maritsa Solano-Gonzalez; Adriana Mercado-Garcia; Ivan Pantic; Joel Schwartz; Martha M Tellez-Rojo; Andrea A Baccarelli; Robert O Wright Journal: Epigenomics Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 4.778
Authors: Emily Oken; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Chitra Amarasiriwardena; Innocent Jayawardene; David C Bellinger; Joseph R Hibbeln; Robert O Wright; Matthew W Gillman Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2016-07-02 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Leah Zilversmit; Jeffrey Wickliffe; Arti Shankar; Robert J Taylor; Emily W Harville Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Yu-Han Chiu; Raj P Fadadu; Audrey J Gaskins; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Hannah E Laue; Kelle H Moley; Marie-France Hivert; Andrea Baccarelli; Emily Oken; Jorge E Chavarro; Andres Cardenas Journal: Environ Mol Mutagen Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 3.579