Evaluation of tools used to measure calcium and/or dairy consumption in adults

Abstract

Objective: To identify and critique tools for the assessment of Ca and/or dairy intake in adults, in order to ascertain the most accurate and reliable tools available. Design: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles reporting on originally developed tools or testing the reliability or validity of existing tools that measure Ca and/or dairy intake in adults were included. Author-defined criteria for reporting reliability and validity properties were applied. Setting: Studies conducted in Western countries. Subjects: Adults. Results: Thirty papers, utilising thirty-six tools assessing intake of dairy, Ca or both, were identified. Reliability testing was conducted on only two dairy and five Ca tools, with results indicating that only one dairy and two Ca tools were reliable. Validity testing was conducted for all but four Ca-only tools. There was high reliance in validity testing on lower-order tests such as correlation and failure to differentiate between statistical and clinically meaningful differences. Results of the validity testing suggest one dairy and five Ca tools are valid. Thus one tool was considered both reliable and valid for the assessment of dairy intake and only two tools proved reliable and valid for the assessment of Ca intake. Conclusions: While several tools are reliable and valid, their application across adult populations is limited by the populations in which they were tested. These results indicate a need for tools that assess Ca and/or dairy intake in adults to be rigorously tested for reliability and validity.

Relevance of the semi-quantitative short Food Frequency Questionnaire in assessment of calcium consumption by female inhabitants of Zabrze over the age of 55 years (the Silesia Osteo Active Study)

“…Nevertheless, the authors of the mentioned report suggest that when selecting the method of evaluation, it makes sense to take into account the type, size, age, sex and physiological condition of a population. It may then be worthwhile to classify nutrition evaluation methods in the context of various studied groups [26]. A Croatian study of 333 postmenopausal women has demonstrated that FFQ may not be suitable for determination of either low, i.e.…”

Dairy intake-related intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control of South African nutrition professionals

“…17,19,23,[33][34][35][36][37] A team of seven (dairy) nutrition professionals critically reviewed the items to check for relevance, understandability and face validity in the South African context, since elicitation is a first step in appropriately applying the TPB. 20 The questionnaire was tested prior to administration.…”

Science dialogue mapping of knowledge and knowledge gaps related to the effects of dairy intake on human cardiovascular health and disease

“…Setting and meeting structure-Pre-meeting materials were updated between Phases 1 and 2. Prior to arriving, participants were provided with instructions and guidelines (see supplemental materials), as well as a collection of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Alexander et al, 2016;Bordoni et al, 2017;Crichton, Bryan, Buckley, & Murphy, 2011;de Goede, Geleijnse, Ding, & Soedamah-Muthu, 2015;de Goede, Soedamah-Muthu, Pan, Gijsbers, & Geleijnse, 2016;Ding et al, 2017;Dumas et al, 2017;Geng, Qi, & Huang, 2017;Gibson, Makrides, Smithers, Voevodin, & Sinclair, 2009;Labonte, Couture, Richard, Desroches, & Lamarche, 2013;Larsson, Crippa, Orsini, Wolk, & Michaelsson, 2015;Liang, Zhou, Kwame Amakye, Su, & Zhang, 2016;Magarey, Baulderstone, Yaxley, Markow, & Miller, 2015;McGrane et al, 2011;Mente, de Koning, Shannon, & Anand, 2009;Mullie, Pizot, & Autier, 2016;Ndanuko, Tapsell, Charlton, Neale, & Batterham, 2016;Pasin and Comerford, 2015;Pimpin, Wu, Haskelberg, Del Gobbo, & Mozaffarian, 2016;Ralston, Lee, Truby, Palermo, & Walker, 2012;Schwab et al, 2014;Soedamah-Muthu, Verberne, Ding, Engberink, & Geleijnse, 2012;Sun and Buys, 2015;Thorning et al, 2017;Wu and Sun, 2017). These reviews included RCTs, but were not necessarily exclusively RCTs, and may have only reviewed (not meta-analyzed) the studies.…”

“…Notably, most large-scale analyses use self-reported intake data, the strengths and limitations of which have been described thoroughly elsewhere [c.f., (Dhurandhar et al, 2015;Subar et al, 2015)]. In addition to the typical limitations of self-report, specific concerns were discussed about dairy foods (Magarey, et al, 2015). For instance, some questionnaires have not distinguished amongst full-, reduced-, or non-fat dairy (Mente, et al, 2009).…”