Maria Carlota Dao1, Amy F Subar2, Marisol Warthon-Medina3, Janet E Cade3, Tracy Burrows4, Rebecca K Golley5, Nita G Forouhi6, Matthew Pearce6, Bridget A Holmes7. 1. 1Sorbonne University,INSERM, NutriOmics Team, ICAN, Paris,France. 2. 2National Cancer Institute,Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Bethesda, MD,USA. 3. 3Nutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Science and Nutrition,University of Leeds,Leeds,UK. 4. 4Faculty of Health and Medicine,University of Newcastle,Callaghan, NSW,Australia. 5. 5Nutrition and Dietetics, College of Nursing and Health Sciences,Flinders University,Adelaide, SA,Australia. 6. 6MRC Epidemiology Unit,University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine,Cambridge,UK. 7. 7Danone Nutricia Research, R.D. 128 Avenue de la Vauve, 91767 Palaiseau Cedex,France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A wide variety of methods are available to assess dietary intake, each one with different strengths and weaknesses. Researchers face multiple challenges when diet and nutrition need to be accurately assessed, particularly in the selection of the most appropriate dietary assessment method for their study. The goal of the current collaborative work is to present a collection of available resources for dietary assessment implementation.Design/Setting/ParticipantsAs a follow-up to the 9th International Conference on Diet and Physical Activity Methods held in 2015, developers of dietary assessment toolkits agreed to collaborate in the preparation of the present paper, which provides an overview of each toolkit. The toolkits presented include: the Diet, Anthropometry and Physical Activity Measurement Toolkit (DAPA; UK); the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Dietary Assessment Primer (USA); the Nutritools website (UK); the Australasian Child and Adolescent Obesity Research Network (ACAORN) method selector (Australia); and the Danone Dietary Assessment Toolkit (DanoneDAT; France). An at-a-glance summary of features and comparison of the toolkits is provided. RESULTS: The present review contains general background on dietary assessment, along with a summary of each of the included toolkits, a feature comparison table and direct links to each toolkit, all of which are freely available online. CONCLUSIONS: This overview of dietary assessment toolkits provides comprehensive information to aid users in the selection and implementation of the most appropriate dietary assessment method, or combination of methods, with the goal of collecting the highest-quality dietary data possible.
OBJECTIVE: A wide variety of methods are available to assess dietary intake, each one with different strengths and weaknesses. Researchers face multiple challenges when diet and nutrition need to be accurately assessed, particularly in the selection of the most appropriate dietary assessment method for their study. The goal of the current collaborative work is to present a collection of available resources for dietary assessment implementation.Design/Setting/ParticipantsAs a follow-up to the 9th International Conference on Diet and Physical Activity Methods held in 2015, developers of dietary assessment toolkits agreed to collaborate in the preparation of the present paper, which provides an overview of each toolkit. The toolkits presented include: the Diet, Anthropometry and Physical Activity Measurement Toolkit (DAPA; UK); the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Dietary Assessment Primer (USA); the Nutritools website (UK); the Australasian Child and Adolescent Obesity Research Network (ACAORN) method selector (Australia); and the Danone Dietary Assessment Toolkit (DanoneDAT; France). An at-a-glance summary of features and comparison of the toolkits is provided. RESULTS: The present review contains general background on dietary assessment, along with a summary of each of the included toolkits, a feature comparison table and direct links to each toolkit, all of which are freely available online. CONCLUSIONS: This overview of dietary assessment toolkits provides comprehensive information to aid users in the selection and implementation of the most appropriate dietary assessment method, or combination of methods, with the goal of collecting the highest-quality dietary data possible.
Authors: Anthea Magarey; Jane Watson; Rebecca K Golley; Tracy Burrows; Rachel Sutherland; Sarah A McNaughton; Elizabeth Denney-Wilson; Karen Campbell; Clare Collins Journal: Int J Pediatr Obes Date: 2010-09-28
Authors: Amely M Verreijen; Sjors Verlaan; Mariëlle F Engberink; Sophie Swinkels; Johan de Vogel-van den Bosch; Peter J M Weijs Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Salwa A Albar; Nisreen A Alwan; Charlotte E L Evans; Darren C Greenwood; Janet E Cade Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: B Amoutzopoulos; T Steer; C Roberts; J E Cade; C J Boushey; C E Collins; E Trolle; E J de Boer; N Ziauddeen; C van Rossum; E Buurma; D Coyle; P Page Journal: J Nutr Sci Date: 2018-04-02
Authors: Janet E Cade; Marisol Warthon-Medina; Salwa Albar; Nisreen A Alwan; Andrew Ness; Mark Roe; Petra A Wark; Katharine Greathead; Victoria J Burley; Paul Finglas; Laura Johnson; Polly Page; Katharine Roberts; Toni Steer; Jozef Hooson; Darren C Greenwood; Sian Robinson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Orlagh Feehan; Pamela Jane Magee; Laura Kirsty Pourshahidi; David John Armstrong; Mary Martina Slevin; Philip James Allsopp; Marie Catherine Conway; J J Strain; Emeir Mary McSorley Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 4.865
Authors: Yasmine Y Bouzid; Joanne E Arsenault; Ellen L Bonnel; Eduardo Cervantes; Annie Kan; Nancy L Keim; Danielle G Lemay; Charles B Stephensen Journal: Curr Dev Nutr Date: 2021-02-02
Authors: Malek Batal; Hing Man Chan; Karen Fediuk; Amy Ing; Peter Berti; Tonio Sadik; Louise Johnson-Down Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2021-06-28
Authors: Rebecca K Kelly; Cody Z Watling; Tammy Y N Tong; Carmen Piernas; Jennifer L Carter; Keren Papier; Timothy J Key; Aurora Perez-Cornago Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Melissa M Melough; Junichi Sakaki; Linda M Liao; Rashmi Sinha; Eunyoung Cho; Ock K Chun Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Maud Alligier; Romain Barrès; Ellen E Blaak; Yves Boirie; Jildau Bouwman; Paul Brunault; Kristina Campbell; Karine Clément; I Sadaf Farooqi; Nathalie J Farpour-Lambert; Gema Frühbeck; Gijs H Goossens; Jorg Hager; Jason C G Halford; Hans Hauner; David Jacobi; Chantal Julia; Dominique Langin; Andrea Natali; Martin Neovius; Jean Michel Oppert; Uberto Pagotto; Antonio L Palmeira; Helen Roche; Mikael Rydén; André J Scheen; Chantal Simon; Thorkild I A Sorensen; Luc Tappy; Hannele Yki-Järvinen; Olivier Ziegler; Martine Laville Journal: Obes Facts Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.942