Rajshri Roy1, Lana Hebden2, Anna Rangan2, Margaret Allman-Farinelli2. 1. Department of Nutrition and Metabolism, School of Molecular Bioscience, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: rajshri.roy@sydney.edu.au. 2. Department of Nutrition and Metabolism, School of Molecular Bioscience, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diet quality indices are used to assess dietary behavior and adherence to dietary guideline recommendations. The aim of this study was to develop, apply, and validate a Healthy Eating Index for Australian Adults (HEIFA-2013) based on the updated Dietary Guidelines for Australians 2013. METHODS: The HEIFA-2013 used an 11-component system of 5 food groups, 4 nutrients, water intake, and a measure of dietary variety. The total possible index score was 100. The HEIFA-2013 was applied to weighed food record (WFR) and food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) data of a sample (n = 100) of young adults. The HEIFA-2013 was assessed using principal components analysis (PCA), Cronbach's coefficient, and correlation coefficient with nutrient intakes. Scores for HEIFA-2013 components were compared between methods using means, frequencies, 95% limits of agreement, Bland and Altman methods, and weighted kappa. RESULTS: PCA indicated that multiple underlying dimensions compose the index, and Cronbach's coefficient α was 0.41. A higher HEIFA-2013 was associated with higher dietary quality, including a low intake of saturated fat and sodium and a high intake of selected vitamins and minerals. Low correlations with energy were observed. The mean HEIFA-2013 score ± standard error (SE) for the WFR was 53.84 ± 1 and for the FFQ was 54.82 ± 0.9. The total mean scores were 54.33 ± 0.1. Young adults had the lowest mean scores for sodium (2.9 ± 0.2), fat (3.0 ± 0.0), vegetables (4.7 ± 0.1), and grains (5.1 ± 0.1). The WFR and FFQ scored individual components differently, but at the group level the differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The HEIFA-2013 will need to be catered for different diet collection methods. It is a useful index of overall diet quality and can be used to monitor changes in dietary intake of adults over time. The findings infer that even a highly educated affluent group of young adults fails to meet recommended dietary guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: Diet quality indices are used to assess dietary behavior and adherence to dietary guideline recommendations. The aim of this study was to develop, apply, and validate a Healthy Eating Index for Australian Adults (HEIFA-2013) based on the updated Dietary Guidelines for Australians 2013. METHODS: The HEIFA-2013 used an 11-component system of 5 food groups, 4 nutrients, water intake, and a measure of dietary variety. The total possible index score was 100. The HEIFA-2013 was applied to weighed food record (WFR) and food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) data of a sample (n = 100) of young adults. The HEIFA-2013 was assessed using principal components analysis (PCA), Cronbach's coefficient, and correlation coefficient with nutrient intakes. Scores for HEIFA-2013 components were compared between methods using means, frequencies, 95% limits of agreement, Bland and Altman methods, and weighted kappa. RESULTS: PCA indicated that multiple underlying dimensions compose the index, and Cronbach's coefficient α was 0.41. A higher HEIFA-2013 was associated with higher dietary quality, including a low intake of saturated fat and sodium and a high intake of selected vitamins and minerals. Low correlations with energy were observed. The mean HEIFA-2013 score ± standard error (SE) for the WFR was 53.84 ± 1 and for the FFQ was 54.82 ± 0.9. The total mean scores were 54.33 ± 0.1. Young adults had the lowest mean scores for sodium (2.9 ± 0.2), fat (3.0 ± 0.0), vegetables (4.7 ± 0.1), and grains (5.1 ± 0.1). The WFR and FFQ scored individual components differently, but at the group level the differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The HEIFA-2013 will need to be catered for different diet collection methods. It is a useful index of overall diet quality and can be used to monitor changes in dietary intake of adults over time. The findings infer that even a highly educated affluent group of young adults fails to meet recommended dietary guidelines.
Authors: Yiyang Yue; Changzheng Yuan; Dong D Wang; Molin Wang; Mingyang Song; Zhilei Shan; Frank Hu; Bernard Rosner; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Walter C Willett Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 8.472
Authors: Michelle Blumfield; Carlene Starck; Tim Keighley; Peter Petocz; Anna Roesler; Kylie Abbott; Tim Cassettari; Skye Marshall; Flavia Fayet-Moore Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Leandro Teixeira Cacau; Eduardo De Carli; Aline Martins de Carvalho; Paulo Andrade Lotufo; Luis A Moreno; Isabela Martins Bensenor; Dirce Maria Marchioni Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Lyndal Wellard-Cole; Jisu Jung; Judy Kay; Anna Rangan; Kathy Chapman; Wendy L Watson; Clare Hughes; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Adrian Bauman; Luke Gemming; Kalina Yacef; Irena Koprinska; Margaret Allman-Farinelli Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-01-26