Holly L Nicastro1, Regan L Bailey2, Kevin W Dodd3. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, holly.nicastro@nih.gov. 2. Office of Dietary Supplements, Office of the Director, and. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One-half of US adults report using a dietary supplement. NHANES has traditionally assessed dietary supplement use via a 30-d questionnaire but in 2007 added a supplement module to the 24-h dietary recall (24HR). OBJECTIVE: We compared these 2 dietary assessment methods, examined potential biases in the methods, and determined the effect that instrument choice had on estimates of prevalence of multivitamin/multimineral dietary supplement (MVMM) use. METHODS: We described prevalence of dietary supplement use by age, sex, and assessment instrument in 12,285 adults in the United States (>19 y of age) from NHANES 2007-2010. RESULTS: When using data from the questionnaire alone, 29.3% ± 1.0% of men and 35.5% ± 1.0% of women were users of MVMMs, whereas data from the 24HR only produced prevalence estimates of 26.3% ± 1.1% for men and 33.2% ± 1.0% for women. When using data from both instruments combined, 32.3% ± 1.2% of men and 39.5% ± 1.1% of women were classified as MVMM users. Prevalence estimates were significantly higher by 2-9% in all age-sex groups when using information from both instruments combined than when using data from either instrument individually. A digit preference bias and flattened slope phenomenon were observed in responses to the dietary supplement questionnaire. A majority (67%) of MVMMs were captured on both instruments, whereas 19% additional MVMMs were captured on the questionnaire and 14% additional on the 24HR. Of those captured only on the 24HR, 26% had missing label information, whereas only 12% and 9% of those captured on the questionnaire or both, respectively, had missing information. CONCLUSIONS: Use of both the dietary supplement questionnaire and the 24HR can provide advantages to researchers over the use of a single instrument and potentially capture a larger fraction of dietary supplement users.
BACKGROUND: One-half of US adults report using a dietary supplement. NHANES has traditionally assessed dietary supplement use via a 30-d questionnaire but in 2007 added a supplement module to the 24-h dietary recall (24HR). OBJECTIVE: We compared these 2 dietary assessment methods, examined potential biases in the methods, and determined the effect that instrument choice had on estimates of prevalence of multivitamin/multimineral dietary supplement (MVMM) use. METHODS: We described prevalence of dietary supplement use by age, sex, and assessment instrument in 12,285 adults in the United States (>19 y of age) from NHANES 2007-2010. RESULTS: When using data from the questionnaire alone, 29.3% ± 1.0% of men and 35.5% ± 1.0% of women were users of MVMMs, whereas data from the 24HR only produced prevalence estimates of 26.3% ± 1.1% for men and 33.2% ± 1.0% for women. When using data from both instruments combined, 32.3% ± 1.2% of men and 39.5% ± 1.1% of women were classified as MVMM users. Prevalence estimates were significantly higher by 2-9% in all age-sex groups when using information from both instruments combined than when using data from either instrument individually. A digit preference bias and flattened slope phenomenon were observed in responses to the dietary supplement questionnaire. A majority (67%) of MVMMs were captured on both instruments, whereas 19% additional MVMMs were captured on the questionnaire and 14% additional on the 24HR. Of those captured only on the 24HR, 26% had missing label information, whereas only 12% and 9% of those captured on the questionnaire or both, respectively, had missing information. CONCLUSIONS: Use of both the dietary supplement questionnaire and the 24HR can provide advantages to researchers over the use of a single instrument and potentially capture a larger fraction of dietary supplement users.
Authors: Regan L Bailey; Jaime J Gahche; Cindy V Lentino; Johanna T Dwyer; Jody S Engel; Paul R Thomas; Joseph M Betz; Christopher T Sempos; Mary Frances Picciano Journal: J Nutr Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Kevin W Dodd; Patricia M Guenther; Laurence S Freedman; Amy F Subar; Victor Kipnis; Douglas Midthune; Janet A Tooze; Susan M Krebs-Smith Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2006-10
Authors: Regan L Bailey; Jaime J Gahche; Paige E Miller; Paul R Thomas; Johanna T Dwyer Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Alanna J Moshfegh; Donna G Rhodes; David J Baer; Theophile Murayi; John C Clemens; William V Rumpler; David R Paul; Rhonda S Sebastian; Kevin J Kuczynski; Linda A Ingwersen; Robert C Staples; Linda E Cleveland Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Regan L Bailey; Kevin W Dodd; Jaime J Gahche; Johanna T Dwyer; Alexandra E Cowan; Shinyoung Jun; Heather A Eicher-Miller; Patricia M Guenther; Anindya Bhadra; Paul R Thomas; Nancy Potischman; Raymond J Carroll; Janet A Tooze Journal: J Nutr Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Alexandra E Cowan; Shinyoung Jun; Janet A Tooze; Kevin W Dodd; Jaime J Gahche; Heather A Eicher-Miller; Patricia M Guenther; Johanna T Dwyer; Alanna J Moshfegh; Donna G Rhodes; Anindya Bhadra; Regan L Bailey Journal: J Nutr Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: TusaRebecca E Pannucci; Frances E Thompson; Regan L Bailey; Kevin W Dodd; Nancy Potischman; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Gwen L Alexander; Laura A Coleman; Lawrence H Kushi; Michelle Groesbeck; Maria Sundaram; Heather Clancy; Stephanie M George; Lisa Kahle; Amy F Subar Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Shari S Bassuk; JoAnn E Manson; I-Min Lee; Nancy R Cook; William G Christen; Vadim Y Bubes; David S Gordon; Trisha Copeland; Georgina Friedenberg; Denise M D'Agostino; Claire Y Ridge; Jean G MacFadyen; Kate Kalan; Julie E Buring Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Alexandra E Cowan; Shinyoung Jun; Janet A Tooze; Kevin W Dodd; Jaime J Gahche; Heather A Eicher-Miller; Patricia M Guenther; Johanna T Dwyer; Nancy Potischman; Anindya Bhadra; Raymond J Carroll; Regan L Bailey Journal: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 11.176