Development and validation of a Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool in the French-speaking adults from Quebec.
Alternative healthy eating index
Brief diet quality assessment tool
Classification and regression tree
Diet quality
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 08 2019
06 08 2019
Historique:
received:
12
10
2018
accepted:
22
07
2019
entrez:
8
8
2019
pubmed:
8
8
2019
medline:
21
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to develop and validate a short, self-administered questionnaire to assess diet quality in clinical settings, using the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) as reference. A total of 1040 men and women (aged 44.6 ± 14.4 y) completed a validated web-based food frequency questionnaire (webFFQ) and had their height and weight measured (development sample). Participants were categorized arbitrarily according to diet quality (high: AHEI score ≥ 65/110, low: AHEI score < 65/110) based on dietary intake data from the webFFQ. The Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool was developed using a classification and regression tree (CART) approach and individual answers to the webFFQ among participants considered to have a plausible energy intake (ratio of reported energy intake to basal metabolic rate ≥ 1.2 and < 2.4; n = 1040). A second sample of 3344 older adults (aged 66.5 ± 6.4 y) was used to test the external validity of the Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool (external validation sample). The decision tree included sequences of 3 to 6 binary questions, yielding 21 different pathways classifying diet quality as being high or low. In the development sample, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the predictive model was 0.92, with sensitivity, specificity and agreement values of 89.5, 83.9 and 87.2%. Compared with individuals having a low-quality diet according to the Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool (mean AHEI 56.7 ± 11.4), individuals classified as having a high-quality diet (mean AHEI 71.3 ± 11.0) were significantly older, and had lower BMI, percent body fat and waist circumference, and had lower blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol/HDL ratio and fasting insulin as well as higher HDL-cholesterol concentrations (all P < 0.05). Similar results were observed in the external validation sample, although overall performance of the Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool was slightly lower than in the development sample, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.79 and sensitivity, specificity and agreement values of 73.0, 69.0 and 71.3%, respectively. The CART approach yielded a simple and rapid Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool that identifies individuals at risk of having a low-quality diet. Further studies are needed to test the performance of this tool in primary care settings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to develop and validate a short, self-administered questionnaire to assess diet quality in clinical settings, using the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) as reference.
METHODS
A total of 1040 men and women (aged 44.6 ± 14.4 y) completed a validated web-based food frequency questionnaire (webFFQ) and had their height and weight measured (development sample). Participants were categorized arbitrarily according to diet quality (high: AHEI score ≥ 65/110, low: AHEI score < 65/110) based on dietary intake data from the webFFQ. The Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool was developed using a classification and regression tree (CART) approach and individual answers to the webFFQ among participants considered to have a plausible energy intake (ratio of reported energy intake to basal metabolic rate ≥ 1.2 and < 2.4; n = 1040). A second sample of 3344 older adults (aged 66.5 ± 6.4 y) was used to test the external validity of the Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool (external validation sample).
RESULTS
The decision tree included sequences of 3 to 6 binary questions, yielding 21 different pathways classifying diet quality as being high or low. In the development sample, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the predictive model was 0.92, with sensitivity, specificity and agreement values of 89.5, 83.9 and 87.2%. Compared with individuals having a low-quality diet according to the Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool (mean AHEI 56.7 ± 11.4), individuals classified as having a high-quality diet (mean AHEI 71.3 ± 11.0) were significantly older, and had lower BMI, percent body fat and waist circumference, and had lower blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol/HDL ratio and fasting insulin as well as higher HDL-cholesterol concentrations (all P < 0.05). Similar results were observed in the external validation sample, although overall performance of the Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool was slightly lower than in the development sample, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.79 and sensitivity, specificity and agreement values of 73.0, 69.0 and 71.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The CART approach yielded a simple and rapid Brief Diet Quality Assessment Tool that identifies individuals at risk of having a low-quality diet. Further studies are needed to test the performance of this tool in primary care settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31387609
doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0821-6
pii: 10.1186/s12966-019-0821-6
pmc: PMC6685233
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
61Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : FHG 129921
Pays : Canada
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 201109MOP-257818-PH2-CFBA-35698
Pays : Canada
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 201309MOP-312916-PH1-CFBA-35698
Pays : Canada
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 201403 MOP-325244-BCA-CFBA-52569
Pays : Canada
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 201603PJT-366272-PJT-CFBA-35698
Pays : Canada
Références
J Am Diet Assoc. 1999 Nov;99(11):1433-9
pubmed: 10570682
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Nov;72(5):1223-31
pubmed: 11063453
Public Health Nutr. 2001 Apr;4(2):249-54
pubmed: 11299098
Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Dec 15;154(12):1113-8
pubmed: 11744516
Ann Behav Med. 2003 Dec;26(3):172-81
pubmed: 14644693
Diabetes Care. 2004 Mar;27(3):727-33
pubmed: 14988293
Prev Sci. 2004 Sep;5(3):169-83
pubmed: 15470937
J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5):775-89
pubmed: 15883556
Stat Med. 1992 Feb 28;11(4):475-89
pubmed: 1609179
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006 Sep-Oct;38(5):286-92
pubmed: 16966049
J Nutr. 2006 Nov;136(11):2908-15
pubmed: 17056821
J Am Diet Assoc. 2007 Feb;107(2):246-55
pubmed: 17258961
Health Rep. 2007 Feb;18(1):23-35
pubmed: 17441441
J Am Diet Assoc. 2007 May;107(5):773-81
pubmed: 17467372
Nutr Rev. 2007 Apr;65(4):155-66
pubmed: 17503710
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Dec;45(12):569-81
pubmed: 1810719
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1632-42
pubmed: 19064525
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010 Mar;64(3):236-42
pubmed: 19710044
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Jan;40(1):67-71
pubmed: 21146770
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012 Feb;66(2):166-73
pubmed: 21934698
J Nutr. 2012 Jun;142(6):1009-18
pubmed: 22513989
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43134
pubmed: 22905215
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013 Feb;113(2):297-306
pubmed: 23168270
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013 Dec;15(12):1093-100
pubmed: 23683111
Am J Hypertens. 2013 Nov;26(11):1311-20
pubmed: 23920282
J Nutr. 2014 Mar;144(3):399-407
pubmed: 24453128
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014 Nov;114(11):1776-83
pubmed: 24685236
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Jul 15;180(2):172-88
pubmed: 24918187
Public Health Nutr. 2016 Feb;19(2):339-47
pubmed: 25892409
Am J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun 15;181(12):970-8
pubmed: 25964261
Public Health Nutr. 2016 Nov;19(16):2915-2923
pubmed: 27181696
Nutr Res Pract. 2016 Jun;10(3):305-12
pubmed: 27247727
J Nutr. 2016 Oct;146(10):2035-2044
pubmed: 27605403
Can J Cardiol. 2016 Nov;32(11):1263-1282
pubmed: 27712954
Adv Nutr. 2017 Mar 15;8(2):276-289
pubmed: 28298272
Br J Nutr. 2017 Aug;118(4):312-320
pubmed: 28875870
Nutrients. 2018 Jan 06;10(1):null
pubmed: 29316612
Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Mar 9;:
pubmed: 29534180
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Apr 12;7(8):
pubmed: 29650711
PLoS Med. 2018 May 21;15(5):e1002571
pubmed: 29782486
Clin Chem. 1972 Jun;18(6):499-502
pubmed: 4337382