A Web-Based 24-H Dietary Recall Could Be a Valid Tool for the Indicative Assessment of Dietary Intake in Older Adults Living in Slovenia

Abstract

The methodology used in dietary surveys could, to a large extent, follow the instructions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), where 24-h dietary recall (24HDR) is recommended for (sub) population studies. However, it is necessary to examine the suitability of 24HDR for indicative dietary intake in older adults. This study aimed to compare participants’ dietary intakes with the recommendations and to compare dietary intakes derived from a 24HDR using an OPEN web-based application to those obtained from reference weighed food records (WFRs). Forty-nine Slovenian residential home residents completed both assessments, and a comparison with dietary reference values was performed. Estimates from these two methods were compared and the correlations between them were assessed. The findings revealed that dietary intakes derived from the WFR method mostly differed from the recommended intakes. The 24HDR underestimated dietary intake compared to the WFR for 66% of monitored parameters, while 75% of these parameters were correlated, mostly at a moderate level (0.3–0.69). In conclusion, the diets of residential home residents in this study mostly differed from recommendations. Both methods for dietary intake assessment provided comparable results for most of the monitored parameters in expected deviations. A web-based 24HDR could be a valid tool for the indicative assessment of dietary intake in older adults. However, further validations are required.

Inadequate Intake of Dietary Fibre in Adolescents, Adults, and Elderlies: Results of Slovenian Representative SI. Menu Study

“…We should also mention a Dutch study on adults (19-69 years) [42], which only reported dietary fibre per energy intake and also observed higher fibre intakes in women. Nevertheless, the majority of the population is far from meeting the recommendations for daily dietary fibre intake, regardless of gender, which is in line with previous reports from Slovenia [43] and elsewhere [39,44].…”

Vitamin D Intake in Slovenian Adolescents, Adults, and the Elderly Population

“…VitD intake in adolescents varied from 2 to 4 µg/day [44,46], and was 2.1 µg/day in pregnant women [49]. In the elderly living in residential homes, intakes were particularly concerning (1 µg/day) [51]. When comparing our results to other European countries, we found many similarities.…”

“…It should be noted that in their study, VitD intake was estimated with a different method (food frequency questionnaire; FFQ), and that their sample size was much smaller (n =434 with 81 subjects from Slovenia). VitD intakes have been investigated in some other Slovenian populations, such as children [42,43], teenagers [44][45][46], and others [47][48][49][50][51]. VitD intake in adolescents varied from 2 to 4 µg/day [44,46], and was 2.1 µg/day in pregnant women [49].…”

“…In Europe, the reported VitD intake is generally between 3 and 5 µg per day [14,31,[35][36][37][38][39][40], with higher intakes in Northern Europe (up to 11 µg/day) and lower in Southern Europe [14,26,37,38,41]. In Slovenia, only some specific population groups have been investigated (such as children [42,43], teenagers [44][45][46], and others [47][48][49][50][51]); nationally representative data for the healthy adult population are not available. Regarding the VitD intake, Lichthammer et al [52] included populations (15-75 years) from four Central-Eastern European countries (including 81 subjects from Slovenia), and reported very low mean VitD intakes in all countries (the lowest in Austria with 2.2 µg daily, followed by Slovenia (2.6 µg), Poland (3.8 µg), and Hungary (4.1 µg)).…”

A systematic review of vitamin D status and dietary intake in various Slovenian populations

“…In total, sixteen publications reported dietary VitD intakes ( Figure 1 ); of these, ten were journal articles and six were academic theses (details provided in Supplementary table 2). Most (n=12) publications referred to a healthy population ( 17 , 19 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ), while two were on patient populations ( 72 , 73 ). When considering the age and pregnancy status of the participants, one publication referred to children (<10 years) ( 60 ), six to adolescents (10-19 years) ( 17 , 19 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ), eight to adults (>19 years) ( 19 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ), and one publication to pregnant women ( 17 ).…”