Ishii, Yuri Sagami Women's University|National Cancer Center
Ishihara, Junko Sagami Women's University|National Cancer Center
Takachi, Ribeka Nara Women's University|Niigata University
Shinozawa, Yurie National Cancer Center
Imaeda, Nahomi Nagoya Women's University
Goto, Chiho Nagoya Bunri University
Wakai, Kenji Nagoya University
Takahashi, Toshiaki Hiraka General Hospital
Iso, Hiroyasu Osaka University
Nakamura, Kazutoshi Niigata University
Tanaka, Junta Niigata University
Shimazu, Taichi National Cancer Center
Yamaji, Taiki National Cancer Center
Sasazuki, Shizuka National Cancer Center
Sawada, Norie National Cancer Center
Iwasaki, Motoki National Cancer Center
Mikami, Haruo Chiba Cancer Center
Kuriki, Kiyonori University of Shizuoka
Naito, Mariko Nagoya University
Okamoto, Naoko Nagoya City University
Kondo, Fumi Nagoya City University
Hosono, Satoyo Aichi Cancer Center
Miyagawa, Naoko Shiga University of Medical Science
Ozaki, Etsuko Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine
Ohnaka, Keizo Kyushu University
Nanri, Hinako Showa University
Tsunematsu-Nakahata, Noriko Shimane University
Kayama, Takamasa Yamagata University
Kurihara, Ayako Keio University
Kojima, Shiomi Tokoha University
Tanaka, Hideo Aichi Cancer Center|Nagoya University
Tsugane, Shoichiro National Cancer Center
Dietary assessment method
Background: Although open-ended dietary assessment methods, such as weighed food records (WFRs), are generally considered to be comparable, differences between procedures may influence outcome when WFRs are conducted independently. In this paper, we assess the procedures of WFRs in two studies to describe their dietary assessment procedures and compare the subsequent outcomes.
Methods: WFRs of 12 days (3 days for four seasons) were conducted as reference methods for intake data, in accordance with the study protocol, among a subsample of participants of two large cohort studies. We compared the WFR procedures descriptively. We also compared some dietary intake variables, such as the frequency of foods and dishes and contributing foods, to determine whether there were differences in the portion size distribution and intra- and inter-individual variation in nutrient intakes caused by the difference in procedures.
Results: General procedures of the dietary records were conducted in accordance with the National Health and Nutrition Survey and were the same for both studies. Differences were seen in 1) selection of multiple days (non-consecutive days versus consecutive days); and 2) survey sheet recording method (individual versus family participation). However, the foods contributing to intake of energy and selected nutrients, the portion size distribution, and intra- and inter-individual variation in nutrient intakes were similar between the two studies.
Conclusion: Our comparison of WFR procedures in two independent studies revealed several differences. Notwithstanding these procedural differences, however, the subsequent outcomes were similar.
Journal of Epidemiology
Japan Epidemiological Association
© 2017 The Authors. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japan Epidemiological Association. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
jepide_27_7_331.pdf 216 KB