Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-22T11:51:26.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the diet of adolescent girls in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Siân Robinson ,
Ria Skelton ,
Mary Barker  and
Clare Wilman
Siân Robinson*
Affiliation:
MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
Ria Skelton
Affiliation:
MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
Mary Barker
Affiliation:
MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
Clare Wilman
Affiliation:
MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email smr@mrc.soton.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To assess the ability of a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ1) and a food checklist (FCL) to determine energy and macronutrient intakes of adolescent girls in the general population.

Design:

Energy and macronutrient intakes determined by FFQ1 and the FCL were compared with those from a 7-day weighed dietary record (WDR). The reproducibility of FFQ1 was assessed by a comparison of intakes with those from a repeated questionnaire (FFQ2) completed a month later.

Setting:

Southampton, UK.

Subjects:

Forty-seven 15-year-old girls completed FFQ1 and the WDR and FCL; and 61 girls completed FFQ1 and FFQ2.

Results:

The broad dietary patterns described by the three methods of assessment were similar, although absolute intakes differed. Energy and macronutrient intakes determined by FFQ1 were higher than those recorded in the WDR (all P < 0.001), but intakes assessed by the FCL and WDR were similar. Only FFQ1-assessed energy intakes appeared consistent with predicted energy requirements. With the exception of protein intake, there was reasonable agreement between FFQ1 and the WDR in their estimation of energy and macronutrient intake (range of correlation coefficients 0.28 for energy to 0.33 for carbohydrate). The poorer agreement between FFQ1 and the WDR in their estimates of protein intake arose principally from the misclassification of meat and fish intake, although there was no obvious explanation for this. Energy and macronutrient intakes were similar for FFQ1 and FFQ2.

Conclusions:

Adolescent girls give reproducible answers in response to a self-administered FFQ, which yield useful information about their broad dietary patterns. The FFQ may be a more suitable dietary assessment method than prospective records for use in general population studies of girls of this age. We discuss suggestions for its improved performance.

Keywords

Dietary assessmentMacronutrient intakeAdolescent nutrition
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , April 1999 , pp. 571 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 1999

References

1: Godfrey, K, Robinson, S, Barker, DJP, Osmond, C, Cox, V. Maternal nutrition in early and late pregnancy in relation to placental and fetal growth. BMJ 1996; 312: 410–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2: Livingstone, MBE, Prentice, AM, Coward, WA, et al. Validation of estimates of energy intake by weighed dietary record and diet history in children and adolescents. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1992; 56: 29–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3: Bratteby, LE, Sandhagen, B, Fan, H, Enghardt, H, Samuelson, G. Total energy expenditure and physical activity as assessed by the doubly labeled water method in Swedish adolescents in whom energy intake was underestimated by 7-d diet records. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998; 67: 905–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4: Strain, JJ, Robson, PJ, Livingstone, MBE, et al. Estimates of food and macronutrient intake in a random sample of Northern Ireland adolescents. Br. J. Nutr. 1994; 72: 343–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5: Frost, Andersen L, Nes, M, Lillegaard, IT, Sandstad, B, Bjorneboe, G, Drevon, CA. Evaluation of a quantitative food frequency questionnaire used in a group of Norwegian adolescents. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995; 49: 543–54.Google Scholar
6: Rockett, HRH, Breitenbach, M, Frazier, AL, et al. Validation of a youth/adolescent food frequency questionnaire. Prev. Med. 1997; 26: 808–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Standard Occupational Classification. London: HMSO, 1990.Google Scholar
8: Department of Health. Dietary Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom. London: HMSO, 1991.Google Scholar
9: Robinson, S, Godfrey, K, Cox, V, Barker, D. Evaluation of a food frequency questionnaire used to assess nutrient intakes in pregnant women. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996; 50: 302–8.Google ScholarPubMed
10: Crawley, H. Food Portion Sizes. London: HMSO, 1988.Google Scholar
11: Davies, J, Dickerson, J. Nutrient Content of Food Portions. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1991.Google Scholar
12: Holland, B, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH. Cereals and Cereal Products. Third Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's Composition of Foods. UK: Royal Society of Chemistry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1988.Google Scholar
13: Holland, B, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH. Milk, Milk Products and Eggs. Fourth Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's Composition of Foods. UK: Royal Society of Chemistry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1989.Google Scholar
14: Holland, B, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH. Vegetables, Herbs and Spices. Fifth Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's Composition of Foods. UK: Royal Society of Chemistry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15: Holland, B, Welch, AA, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH, Paul, AA, Southgate, DAT. McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. UK: Royal Society of Chemistry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1991.Google Scholar
16: Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–10.Google ScholarPubMed
17: Delcourt, C, Cubeau, J, Balkau, B, Papoz, L. CODIAB-INSERM-ZENECA Pharma Study Group. Limitations of the correlation coefficient in the validation of diet assessment methods. Epidemiology 1994; 5: 518–24.Google Scholar
18: Torun, B, Davies, PSW, Livingstone, MBE, Paolisso, M, Sackett, R, Spurr, GB. Energy requirements and dietary energy recommendations for children and adolescents 1 to 18 years old. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996; 50: S37–81.Google ScholarPubMed
19: Department of Health. The Diets of British Schoolchildren. London: HMSO, 1989.Google Scholar
20: Calvert, C, Cade, J, Barrett, JH, Woodhouse, A. UKWCS Steering GroupUsing cross-check questions to address the problem of mis-reporting of specific food groups on food frequency questionnaires. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997; 51: 708–12.Google Scholar