Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Contents:

Information:

  • Access
  • Cited by 2

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        On the appropriate use and interpretation of dietary diversity scores. Response to: ‘Farm production diversity and individual-level dietary diversity’ by Koppmair and Qaim
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        On the appropriate use and interpretation of dietary diversity scores. Response to: ‘Farm production diversity and individual-level dietary diversity’ by Koppmair and Qaim
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        On the appropriate use and interpretation of dietary diversity scores. Response to: ‘Farm production diversity and individual-level dietary diversity’ by Koppmair and Qaim
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Madam

We read with great interest the reply from Koppmair and Qaim to the letter from Verger et al. questioning the interpretation of the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) as a proxy indicator for dietary quality( 1 , 2 ). Furthermore, we appreciate the additional analysis Koppmair and Qaim carried out using individual dietary diversity scores( 1 ). Nevertheless, we would like to raise several points regarding the answer of Koppmair and Qaim to remove any ambiguity about the appropriate use and interpretation of dietary diversity scores.

We agree with Koppmair and Qaim when they say that ‘the HDDS with twelve food groups is often used as an indicator of dietary quality at the household level’( 1 ), but the point of our letter was precisely to highlight that this is a misinterpretation of the HDDS that is often made( 2 ). In addition, in one of the studies cited to support this assertion, the authors indeed clearly discussed the limitations of household dietary diversity scores and rightly limited the interpretation of their results to household-level dietary diversity( 3 ). In fact, Hoddinott and Yohannes initially showed that household dietary diversity was a good indicator of changes in household per capita energy availability and of changes in the per capita availability of energy from staples and non-staples( 4 ). Based on these results, the current twelve-food-group version of the HDDS was and is still widely promoted by the US Agency for International Development and the FAO as a proxy of household economic access to food( 5 , 6 ). To date, the HDDS has not been validated as a proxy indicator of dietary quality( 7 ). Furthermore, household-level food access does not always reflect individual-level dietary intake. Inequitable allocation of food within households has long been recognized as an important determinant of individual diets and nutritional status even within food-secure households( 8 ). For example, in northern Ghana it was found that the diets of children of influential members of the household were more adequate and that these children were taller than children of other family units( 9 ). In South Asia, numerous studies have found that male family members have more adequate food intakes compared with female members because of differences in intra-household food allocation( 10 ). Great caution should therefore be taken in making assumptions about individual-level diet from studies that use household-level consumption data, and even more so if studies use a proxy indicator of household economic access to food.

We also contest the interpretation of Koppmair and Qaim that using the twelve food groups of the HDDS at the individual level is ‘not such a bad proxy for individual dietary quality’( 1 ). Indeed, it is no surprise that, using the same data, an indicator based on twelve food groups correlates well with another indicator based on a smaller number of food groups, even with a different grouping. This does not mean that using the twelve food groups of the HDDS at the individual level makes it an adequate reflection of individual dietary diversity. Using indicators that have been validated for assessing dietary diversity, the authors noted ‘the effects of production diversity on individual dietary diversity are even smaller’ than when using the twelve food groups of the HDDS( 1 ). This may well indicate that the effect of production diversity on the dietary diversity of individuals is not as large as was shown, rather than meaning that the indicator based on twelve food groups better reflects dietary diversity.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that ‘dietary diversity’ is not the sole dimension of dietary quality, which includes also adequacy, balance and moderation. Dietary diversity therefore does not equate to dietary quality and such an interpretation should be avoided. It is true, however, that dietary diversity is one key dimension of dietary quality which is particularly crucial in resource-poor settings, especially for vulnerable people like women of reproductive age and young children.

In many contexts, production diversification and improving market access may be synergistic approaches to improving diets( 11 ). However, in the context of studies of linkages between agriculture, markets and food consumption, whether the objectives are to improve human nutrition, sustain productive ecosystems, ensure economic development or a combination of these, great care should be exercised when selecting and interpreting metrics. In order to allow comparisons across studies, regions or countries, it is crucial that standardized dietary diversity scores, accepted by the international scientific community, are used.

Acknowledgements

Financial support: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Conflict of interest: None. Authorship: All the authors contributed equally to the writing and editing of this manuscript. Ethics of human subject participation: Not applicable.

References

1. Koppmair, S & Qaim, M (2017) Farm production diversity and individual-level dietary diversity. Response to: ‘Not all dietary diversity scores can legitimately be interpreted as proxies of diet quality’ by Verger et al. (Letter to the Editor). Public Health Nutr (Epublication ahead of print version).
2. Verger, EO, Dop, MC & Martin-Prével, Y (2016) Not all dietary diversity scores can legitimately be interpreted as proxies of diet quality (Letter to the Editor). Public Health Nutr (Epublication ahead of print version).
3. Jones, AD, Shrinivas, A & Bezner Kerr, R (2014) Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi: findings from nationally representative data. Food Policy 46, 112.
4. Hoddinott, J & Yohannes, Y (2002) Dietary Diversity as a Household Food Security Indicator. Washington, DC: FHI 360/Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project.
5. Swindale, A & Bilinsky, P (2006) Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (V.2). Washington, DC: FHI 360/Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & FHI 360 (2016) Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: A Guide for Measurement. Rome: FAO.
7. Leroy, JL, Ruel, M, Frongillo, EA et al. (2015) Measuring the food access dimension of food security: a critical review and mapping of indicators. Food Nutr Bull 36, 167195.
8. Haddad, L, Hoddinott, J & Alderman, H (1997) Introduction: The scope of intrahousehold resource allocation issues. In Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Models, Methods and Policy, pp. 116 [L Haddad, J Hoddinott and H Alderman, editors]. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
9. Leroy, JL, Razak, AA & Habicht, JP (2008) Only children of the head of household benefit from increased household food diversity in northern Ghana. J Nutr 138, 22582263.
10. Haddad, L, Pena, C, Nishida, C et al. (1996) Food Security and Nutrition Implications of Intrahousehold Bias: A Review of Literature. FCND Discussion Paper no. 19. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
11. Jones, AD (2016) On-farm crop species richness is associated with household dietary diversity and daily per capita energy and micronutrient intakes among subsistence- and market-oriented farming households in Malawi. J Nutr (Epublication ahead of print version).