Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The strengths and weaknesses of dietary survey methods in materially deprived households in England: a discussion paper

  • Bridget Holmes (a1) and Michael Nelson (a1)

Abstract

In 1998, a review for the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (the predecessor of the Food Standards Agency) was published evaluating the relative merits of different dietary assessment methods against a series of factors likely to affect compliance or accuracy in low-income households. The review informed the design of a method comparison study carried out in London, UK, in 2001, in which the validity and acceptability of 4 d dietary assessment methods based on 24 h recalls, food checklists and a semi-weighed method were compared with 4 d weighed inventories and other reference measures. Results were based on observations in 384 respondents (159 males, 225 females) aged 2–90 years in 240 households. Outcomes of the comparison study included evaluations of each method made by respondents, interviewers and researchers. These findings were used in the present paper to update and extend the 1998 review. Additional factors not included in the 1998 review have been considered. This updated and extended review provides the basis for discussion of the relative merits of approaches to dietary assessment in low-income households in developed economies. The evidence presented here and elsewhere suggests that the 24 h recall is the method best suited for dietary assessment in low-income households, followed by the weighed inventory, food checklist and lastly the semi-weighed method.

    • 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.

      The strengths and weaknesses of dietary survey methods in materially deprived households in England: a discussion paper
      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.

      The strengths and weaknesses of dietary survey methods in materially deprived households in England: a discussion paper
      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.

      The strengths and weaknesses of dietary survey methods in materially deprived households in England: a discussion paper
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email bridget.holmes@kcl.ac.uk

References

Hide All
1.Dowler, E, Draper, A, Nelson, M, Thomas, R & Dobson, BM (1998) Scoping Study for a Proposed National Diet and Nutritional Survey of People Living on Low Income in the UK. A Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Grant No. AN1060. London: MAFF.
2.Nelson, M & Nettleton, PA (1980) Dietary survey methods. 1. A semi-weighted technique for measuring dietary intake within families. J Hum Nutr 34, 325348.
3.Gregory, JR, Collins, DL, Davies, PSW, Hughes, JM & Clarke, PC (1995) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Children Aged 1.5 to 4.5 Years. vol. 1: Report of the Diet and Nutrition Survey. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
4.Gregory, JR, Lowe, S, Bates, CJ, Prentice, A, Jackson, LV, Smithers, G, Wenlock, R & Farron, M (2000) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Young People Aged 4 to 18 Years. vol. 1: Report of the Diet and Nutrition Survey. London: The Stationery Office.
5.Henderson, L, Gregory, J & Swan, G (2002) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Adults Aged 19 to 64 Years. vol. 1: Types and Quantities of Food Consumed. London: The Stationery Office.
6.Henderson, L, Gregory, J, Irving, K & Swan, G (2003) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Adults Aged 19 to 64 Years. vol. 2: Energy, Protein, Carbohydrate, Fat and Alcohol Intake. London: The Stationery Office.
7.Henderson, L, Irving, K, Gregory, J, Bates, CJ, Prentice, A, Perks, J, Swan, G & Farron, M (2003) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Adults Aged 19 to 64 Years. vol. 3: Vitamin and Mineral Intake and Urinary Analytes. London: The Stationery Office.
8.Finch, S, Doyle, W, Lowe, C, Bates, CJ, Prentice, A, Smithers, G & Clarke, PC (1998) National Diet and Nutrition Survey: People Aged 65 Years and Over. vol. 1: Report of the Diet and Nutrition Survey. London: The Stationery Office.
9.Nelson, M, Dick, K, Holmes, B, Thomas, R & Dowler, E (2003) Low Income Diet Methods Study. London: Food Standards Agency.
10.Holmes, B, Dick, K & Nelson, M (2008) A comparison of four dietary assessment methods in materially deprived households in England. Public Health Nutr 11, 444456.
11.Holmes, B (2004) A comparison of four dietary assessment methods in low income households in London. PhD Thesis, University of London.
12.Black, AE (2000) Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24, 11191130.
13.Goldberg, GR, Black, AE, Jebb, SA, Cole, TJ, Murgatroyd, PR, Coward, WA & Prentice, AM (1991) Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: 1. Derivation of cut-off limits to identify under-recording. Eur J Clin Nutr 45, 569581.
14.Nelson, M, Atkinson, M & Meyer, J (1997) Food Portion Sizes: A Photographic Atlas of Food Portion Sizes. London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
15.Nelson, M, Erens, B, Bates, B, Church, C & Boshier, T (2007) The Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey, vol. 1. London: The Stationery Office.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed