Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, 8 Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK.
NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition Theme), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Lower Maudlin Street, BristolBS1 2LY, UK.
Nutrients. 2018 Jan 28;10(2):138. doi: 10.3390/nu10020138.
The aim of this study was to examine the validity of the English version of the (PREDIMED) 14-item Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS), a brief questionnaire assessing adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet), which was used in the PREDIMED trial for assessment and immediate feedback. This instrument (MEDAS) was administered to 96 adults with a high cardiovascular risk (66% women, mean age 68.3 ± 6.0 years), recruited from general practices in Bristol, UK. Participants then completed a 3-day estimated food record, and the MEDAS was administered again one month later. A MedDiet score (range = 0-14) was calculated from the MEDAS' administrations and food record to assess concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. Predictive validity was assessed by examining the association of the MEDAS-derived score with cardiometabolic risk factors and dietary intakes derived from the food records. The MEDAS-derived MedDiet score was higher by 1.47 points compared to food records (5.47 vs.4.00, < 0.001), correlated moderately with the record-derived score ( = 0.50, < 0.001; ICC = 0.53, < 0.001) and there was borderline fair agreement between the two methods ( = 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.31, = 0.002; 95% limits of agreement -2.2, 5.1). Exact agreement within score categories and gross misclassificationwere 45.8% and 21.9%, respectively. The distribution of dietary intakes, reported on the food records by the MEDAS-derived total MedDiet score, was in the expected direction, but no association was observed with cardiometabolic risk factors. The two administrations of the MEDAS produced similar mean total MedDiet scores (5.5 vs. 5.4, = 0.706), which were correlated ( and ICC = 0.69, < 0.001) and agreed fairly ( = 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.52, < 0.001; 95% limits of agreement -3.1, 3.2). The English version of the MEDAS has acceptable accuracy and reliability for assessing MedDiet adherence among individuals with a high cardiovascular risk, in the UK, and can be used to rank individuals according to MedDiet adherence in research and practice.
本研究旨在检验英文版 (PREDIMED)14 项地中海饮食依从性筛查器(MEDAS)的有效性,这是一种评估地中海饮食(MedDiet)依从性的简短问卷,该问卷在 PREDIMED 试验中用于评估和即时反馈。该工具(MEDAS)用于评估 96 名心血管风险高的成年人(66%为女性,平均年龄 68.3±6.0 岁),这些人来自英国布里斯托尔的普通诊所。参与者随后完成了为期 3 天的估计食物记录,一个月后再次进行 MEDAS 测试。从 MEDAS 的管理和食物记录中计算出 MedDiet 分数(范围为 0-14),以评估同时效度和重测信度。通过检查 MEDAS 衍生分数与来自食物记录的心血管代谢风险因素和饮食摄入量之间的关联来评估预测效度。MEDAS 衍生的 MedDiet 评分比食物记录高 1.47 分(5.47 比 4.00, < 0.001),与记录衍生的评分中度相关( = 0.50, < 0.001;ICC = 0.53, < 0.001),两种方法之间存在边缘公平协议( = 0.19,95%CI 0.07-0.31, = 0.002;95%置信区间 -2.2,5.1)。两种方法的得分类别内的精确一致性和总体错误分类率分别为 45.8%和 21.9%。根据 MEDAS 衍生的总 MedDiet 评分,食物记录中报告的饮食摄入量分布呈预期方向,但与心血管代谢风险因素无关联。MEDAS 的两次测试产生了相似的平均总 MedDiet 评分(5.5 比 5.4, = 0.706),这两个评分之间存在相关性(ICC = 0.69, < 0.001)且一致性良好( = 0.38,95%CI 0.24-0.52, < 0.001;95%置信区间 -3.1,3.2)。英文版 MEDAS 在英国,对高心血管风险个体的 MedDiet 依从性具有可接受的准确性和可靠性,可用于根据 MedDiet 依从性对个体进行研究和实践排名。