Objective: To compare intake estimates, validity and reliability of two summary questions to measure fish consumption with information from a detailed semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) on fish consumption. Design: Population-based, cross-sectional study. Participants completed an FFQ and provided blood samples for erythrocyte membrane eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) analysis. Aggregate measures of consumption of fresh/frozen/canned fish (fresh fish) and smoked/salted/dried fish (preserved fish) were generated from the FFQ and were compared with responses to the summary questions regarding intakes of similar items. Both methods were tested for validity, using correlation and linear regression techniques with EPA, and retest reliability. Setting: Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia. Subjects: One hundred and nine healthy volunteers of both sexes, aged 21-75 years. Results: The summary fresh fish measure underestimated frequency and grams per week given by the aggregate question by about 50%, while estimates from the summary preserved fish measure were approximately three times that of the aggregate measure. Multiple linear regression analysis suggested that the aggregates accounted for more of the variation in EPA levels, but the difference was minimal. Intra-class correlations confirmed that both methods were reliable. Conclusions: Our study indicates that extensive questioning results in different absolute intakes of fish compared with brief questioning, but does not add any information if ranking individuals according to overall consumption of fish.
Keywords
Epidemiological methodsFatty acids Omega-3 Questionnaires Reproducibility of results
Validation studiesFish consumption has been suggested as a protective factor for the development of various cancers; however, results from studies investigating this association have been inconsistent, ranging from statistically significant associations 1,2 to no clear association at all 3,4 . Possible reasons for this could be either a lack of detail collected by questionnaires used to measure fish consumption and therefore the failure to accurately capture the fish consumption of study participants, or a tendency for investigators to use a single measure to represent overall fish intake in statistical modelling despite having collected detailed information on the various types of fish and seafood consumed. However, there is no published evidence that the distinction among types and styles of fish items is important if ultimately the research question being asked is whether fish, as a food group, has a protective effect on the development of disease.We recently examined data collected as part of a large population-based case-control study for an association between fresh and preserved fish consumption and prostate cancer (Mina K, Fritschi L, Johnson KC, The Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group, 2007, unpublished). Information on fish intake was collected by means of two questions about frequency of consumption of a given am...