Suppr超能文献

估算加利福尼亚州低收入女性的饮食成本:两种方法的比较。

Estimating dietary costs of low-income women in California: a comparison of 2 approaches.

机构信息

Program in International and Community Nutrition and the Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

出版信息

Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Apr;97(4):835-41. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.044453. Epub 2013 Feb 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Currently, no simplified approach to estimating food costs exists for a large, nationally representative sample.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare 2 approaches for estimating individual daily diet costs in a population of low-income women in California.

DESIGN

Cost estimates based on time-intensive method 1 (three 24-h recalls and associated food prices on receipts) were compared with estimates made by using less intensive method 2 [a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and store prices]. Low-income participants (n = 121) of USDA nutrition programs were recruited. Mean daily diet costs, both unadjusted and adjusted for energy, were compared by using Pearson correlation coefficients and the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement between methods.

RESULTS

Energy and nutrient intakes derived by the 2 methods were comparable; where differences occurred, the FFQ (method 2) provided higher nutrient values than did the 24-h recall (method 1). The crude daily diet cost was $6.32 by the 24-h recall method and $5.93 by the FFQ method (P = 0.221). The energy-adjusted diet cost was $6.65 by the 24-h recall method and $5.98 by the FFQ method (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the agreement between methods was weaker than expected, both approaches may be useful. Additional research is needed to further refine a large national survey approach (method 2) to estimate daily dietary costs with the use of this minimal time-intensive method for the participant and moderate time-intensive method for the researcher.

摘要

背景

目前,对于大型、具有全国代表性的样本,还没有一种简化的方法来估算食品成本。

目的

本研究旨在比较两种方法,以估算加利福尼亚州低收入妇女人群中个体日常饮食成本。

设计

基于耗时的方法 1(三份 24 小时回忆和相关收据上的食品价格)得出的成本估计值与使用不太密集的方法 2(食物频率问卷(FFQ)和商店价格)得出的估计值进行了比较。招募了美国农业部营养计划的低收入参与者(n = 121)。使用 Pearson 相关系数和方法之间的 Bland-Altman 95%一致性限来比较未经调整和调整能量后的每日饮食成本。

结果

两种方法得出的能量和营养素摄入量相当;在存在差异的情况下,FFQ(方法 2)提供的营养素值高于 24 小时回忆(方法 1)。24 小时回忆法得出的每日饮食成本为 6.32 美元,FFQ 法为 5.93 美元(P = 0.221)。未经能量调整的饮食成本为 24 小时回忆法 6.65 美元,FFQ 法 5.98 美元(P < 0.001)。

结论

尽管两种方法之间的一致性低于预期,但这两种方法可能都有用。需要进一步研究,以进一步完善一种大型全国性调查方法(方法 2),以便使用这种对参与者而言时间密集度较低、对研究人员而言时间密集度适中的方法来估算每日膳食成本。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
Are socio-economic disparities in diet quality explained by diet cost?饮食质量的社会经济差异是否可以用饮食成本来解释?
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Jun;66(6):530-5. doi: 10.1136/jech.2010.122333. Epub 2010 Dec 10.
3
Can Low-Income Americans Afford a Healthy Diet?美国低收入人群能否负担得起健康饮食?
Nutr Today. 2010 Nov;44(6):246-249. doi: 10.1097/NT.0b013e3181c29f79.
10
Evaluation of validity of items for a food behavior checklist.食品行为清单项目有效性评估。
J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Jul;101(7):751-61. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00189-4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验