Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires

Yuri Ishii, Junko Ishihara, Ribeka Takachi, Yurie Shinozawac, Nahomi Imaeda, Chiho Goto, Kenji Wakai, Toshiaki Takahashi, Hiroyasu Iso, Kazutoshi Nakamura, Junta Tanaka, Taichi Shimazu, Taiki Yamaji, Shizuka Sasazuki, Norie Sawada, Motoki Iwasaki, Haruo Mikami, Kiyonori Kuriki, Mariko Naito, Naoko OkamotoFumi Kondo, Satoyo Hosono, Naoko Miyagawa, Etsuko Ozaki, Sakurako Katsuura-Kamano, Keizo Ohnaka, Hinako Nanri, Noriko Tsunematsu-Nakahata, Takamasa Kayama, Ayako Kurihara, Shiomi Kojima, Hideo Tanaka, Shoichiro Tsugane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)331-337
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of epidemiology
Volume27
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Validation Studies
Food
Portion Size
Surveys and Questionnaires
Diet Records
Nutrition Surveys
Energy Intake
Health Surveys
Cohort Studies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires. / Ishii, Yuri; Ishihara, Junko; Takachi, Ribeka; Shinozawac, Yurie; Imaeda, Nahomi; Goto, Chiho; Wakai, Kenji; Takahashi, Toshiaki; Iso, Hiroyasu; Nakamura, Kazutoshi; Tanaka, Junta; Shimazu, Taichi; Yamaji, Taiki; Sasazuki, Shizuka; Sawada, Norie; Iwasaki, Motoki; Mikami, Haruo; Kuriki, Kiyonori; Naito, Mariko; Okamoto, Naoko; Kondo, Fumi; Hosono, Satoyo; Miyagawa, Naoko; Ozaki, Etsuko; Katsuura-Kamano, Sakurako; Ohnaka, Keizo; Nanri, Hinako; Tsunematsu-Nakahata, Noriko; Kayama, Takamasa; Kurihara, Ayako; Kojima, Shiomi; Tanaka, Hideo; Tsugane, Shoichiro.

In: Journal of epidemiology, Vol. 27, No. 7, 01.01.2017, p. 331-337.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ishii, Y, Ishihara, J, Takachi, R, Shinozawac, Y, Imaeda, N, Goto, C, Wakai, K, Takahashi, T, Iso, H, Nakamura, K, Tanaka, J, Shimazu, T, Yamaji, T, Sasazuki, S, Sawada, N, Iwasaki, M, Mikami, H, Kuriki, K, Naito, M, Okamoto, N, Kondo, F, Hosono, S, Miyagawa, N, Ozaki, E, Katsuura-Kamano, S, Ohnaka, K, Nanri, H, Tsunematsu-Nakahata, N, Kayama, T, Kurihara, A, Kojima, S, Tanaka, H & Tsugane, S 2017, 'Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires', Journal of epidemiology, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 331-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.je.2016.08.008
Ishii, Yuri ; Ishihara, Junko ; Takachi, Ribeka ; Shinozawac, Yurie ; Imaeda, Nahomi ; Goto, Chiho ; Wakai, Kenji ; Takahashi, Toshiaki ; Iso, Hiroyasu ; Nakamura, Kazutoshi ; Tanaka, Junta ; Shimazu, Taichi ; Yamaji, Taiki ; Sasazuki, Shizuka ; Sawada, Norie ; Iwasaki, Motoki ; Mikami, Haruo ; Kuriki, Kiyonori ; Naito, Mariko ; Okamoto, Naoko ; Kondo, Fumi ; Hosono, Satoyo ; Miyagawa, Naoko ; Ozaki, Etsuko ; Katsuura-Kamano, Sakurako ; Ohnaka, Keizo ; Nanri, Hinako ; Tsunematsu-Nakahata, Noriko ; Kayama, Takamasa ; Kurihara, Ayako ; Kojima, Shiomi ; Tanaka, Hideo ; Tsugane, Shoichiro. / Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires. In: Journal of epidemiology. 2017 ; Vol. 27, No. 7. pp. 331-337.
@article{8e2d2b7891d144d68f68e333f2dee574,
title = "Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Yuri Ishii and Junko Ishihara and Ribeka Takachi and Yurie Shinozawac and Nahomi Imaeda and Chiho Goto and Kenji Wakai and Toshiaki Takahashi and Hiroyasu Iso and Kazutoshi Nakamura and Junta Tanaka and Taichi Shimazu and Taiki Yamaji and Shizuka Sasazuki and Norie Sawada and Motoki Iwasaki and Haruo Mikami and Kiyonori Kuriki and Mariko Naito and Naoko Okamoto and Fumi Kondo and Satoyo Hosono and Naoko Miyagawa and Etsuko Ozaki and Sakurako Katsuura-Kamano and Keizo Ohnaka and Hinako Nanri and Noriko Tsunematsu-Nakahata and Takamasa Kayama and Ayako Kurihara and Shiomi Kojima and Hideo Tanaka and Shoichiro Tsugane",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.je.2016.08.008",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "331--337",
journal = "Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0917-5040",
publisher = "Japan Epidemiology Association",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires

AU - Ishii, Yuri

AU - Ishihara, Junko

AU - Takachi, Ribeka

AU - Shinozawac, Yurie

AU - Imaeda, Nahomi

AU - Goto, Chiho

AU - Wakai, Kenji

AU - Takahashi, Toshiaki

AU - Iso, Hiroyasu

AU - Nakamura, Kazutoshi

AU - Tanaka, Junta

AU - Shimazu, Taichi

AU - Yamaji, Taiki

AU - Sasazuki, Shizuka

AU - Sawada, Norie

AU - Iwasaki, Motoki

AU - Mikami, Haruo

AU - Kuriki, Kiyonori

AU - Naito, Mariko

AU - Okamoto, Naoko

AU - Kondo, Fumi

AU - Hosono, Satoyo

AU - Miyagawa, Naoko

AU - Ozaki, Etsuko

AU - Katsuura-Kamano, Sakurako

AU - Ohnaka, Keizo

AU - Nanri, Hinako

AU - Tsunematsu-Nakahata, Noriko

AU - Kayama, Takamasa

AU - Kurihara, Ayako

AU - Kojima, Shiomi

AU - Tanaka, Hideo

AU - Tsugane, Shoichiro

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021803654&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021803654&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.je.2016.08.008

DO - 10.1016/j.je.2016.08.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 28302344

AN - SCOPUS:85021803654

VL - 27

SP - 331

EP - 337

JO - Journal of Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0917-5040

IS - 7

ER -