Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre.

Risk Factor Surveillance and Methodology Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, EPN 4016, 6130 Executive Blvd, MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344, USA.
Public Health Nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.48). 01/2005; 7(8):1097-105. DOI: 10.1079/PHN2004642
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We describe the methods used to develop and score a 17-item 'screener' designed to estimate intake of fruit and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre. The ability of this screener and a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to measure these exposures is evaluated.
Using US national food consumption data, stepwise multiple regression was used to identify the foods to be included on the instrument; multiple regression analysis was used to develop scoring algorithms. The performance of the screener was evaluated in three different studies. Estimates of intakes measured by the screener and the FFQ were compared with true usual intake based on a measurement error model.
US adult population.
For development of instrument, n=9323 adults. For testing of instrument, adult men and women in three studies completing multiple 24-hour dietary recalls, FFQ and screeners, n=484, 462 and 416, respectively.
Median recalled intakes for examined exposures were generally estimated closely by the screener. In the various validation studies, the correlations between screener estimates and estimated true intake were 0.5-0.8. In general, the performances of the screener and the full FFQ were similar; estimates of attenuation were lower for screeners than for full FFQs.
When coupled with appropriate reference data, the screener approach described may yield useful estimates of intake, for both surveillance and epidemiological purposes.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research has shown that microenvironments such as homes and neighborhoods are associated with dietary and physical activity behaviors. This study examines self-reports of home and neighborhood environments of adult dyads living in the same household (n = 83 dyads) and explores correlates of discrepant perceptions. Food and exercise equipment in the home and access to neighborhood recreational facilities were assessed. Agreement between pairs varied across measures, with dyads having less disagreement in reporting their physical activity environment compared with their food environment. Discrepancy indices were .20 for exercise equipment, .29 for neighborhood facilities, .25 for fruits, .26 for drinks, and .28 for vegetables and snacks/other foods. Differences in education, food shopping behavior, fat intake, BMI, and physical activity were associated with discordance in reporting among dyads. Results suggest that co-dwelling adults perceive their home and neighborhood environments differently. This has implications for how microenvironments are measured and how data are interpreted.
    Environment and Behavior 03/2012; 46(3):329-352. DOI:10.1177/0013916512465175 · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimThe aim of this study was to assess the test–retest reliability, relative validity and responsiveness to change of a 20-item fat and fibre behaviour questionnaire (FFBQ) compared with a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).Methods Four hundred thirty-four primary care patients with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension were randomised to lifestyle intervention or usual care. Data (FFBQ and FFQ) were collected at baseline and 4 months follow-up. A subset of usual care participants (n = 27) completed the FFBQ 2 weeks after baseline. FFQ-measured nutrients included total and saturated fat (percentage of energy; energy-adjusted grams) and fibre (crude grams; energy-adjusted grams). The FFBQ was scored as a total, fat and fibre index. Test–retest reliability was assessed by intra-class correlations (ICCs); relative validity by Pearson's correlations between the FFBQ and FFQ; and responsiveness (mean change in intervention group divided by SD of usual care group change).ResultsTest–retest ICCs (95% CI) were 0.87 (0.62, 0.95) for total index, 0.87 (0.69, 0.95) for fat index and 0.89 (0.69, 0.95) for fibre index. Pearson's correlations for fat index ranged from −0.50 to −0.54, and for fibre index from 0.42 to 0.56. Total index had correlations of 0.5–0.6 (or −0.5 to −0.6) with all FFQ-measured nutrients except crude fibre. The fat index showed similar responsiveness compared with FFQ-measured fat intake while the fibre index was significantly more responsive than FFQ-measured fibre.Conclusions The FFBQ may provide a suitable alternative or adjunct to FFQs for use in intervention trials in adults with chronic diseases, because of its ability to detect changes in dietary behaviours.
    Nutrition &amp Dietetics 01/2015; DOI:10.1111/1747-0080.12160 · 0.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To present the short-term follow-up findings of the Steps to Health study, a randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of two employee weight management programs offered within Duke University and the Health System. A total of 550 obese (body mass index, ≥30 kg/m) employees were randomized 1:1 between January 2011 and June 2012 to the education-based Weight Management (WM) or the WM+ arm, which focused on behavior modification. Employees were contacted to complete a follow-up visit approximately 14 months after baseline. There were no clinically, or statistically, meaningful differences between arms, but there were modest reductions in body mass index, and positive, meaningful changes in diet and physical activity for both arms. The modest positive effects observed in this study may suggest that to achieve weight loss through the workplace more intensive interventions may be required.
    Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 02/2015; 57(2):188-95. DOI:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000335 · 1.80 Impact Factor