Department of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Nutrition and Food Systems Division (ESN), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 00153 Rome, Italy.
Nutrients. 2020 Jul 9;12(7):2039. doi: 10.3390/nu12072039.
Minimum dietary diversity for women of reproductive age (MDD-W) was validated as a population-level proxy of micronutrient adequacy, with indicator data collection proposed as either list-based or open recall. No study has assessed the validity of these two non-quantitative proxy methods against weighed food records (WFR). We assessed the measurement agreement of list-based and open recall methods as compared to WFR (i.e., reference method of individual quantitative dietary assessment) for achieving MDD-W and an ordinal food group diversity score. Applying a non-inferiority design, data were collected from non-pregnant women of reproductive age in Cambodia ( = 430), Ethiopia ( = 431), and Zambia ( = 476). For the pooled sample ( = 1337), proportions achieving MDD-W from both proxy methods were compared to WFR proportion by McNemar's chi-square tests, Cohen's kappa, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Ordinal food group diversity (0-10) was compared by Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and weighted kappa. MDD-W food groups that were most frequently misreported (i.e., type I and II errors) by the proxy methods were determined. Our findings indicate statistically significant differences in proportions achieving MDD-W, ordinal food group diversity scores, and ROC curves between both proxy methods and WFR ( < 0.001). List-based and open recall methods overreported women achieving MDD-W by 16 and 10 percentage points, respectively, as compared to WFR (proportion achieving MDD-W: 30%). ICC values between list-based or open recall and WFR were 0.50 and 0.55, respectively. Simple and weighted kappa values both indicated moderate agreement between list-based or open recall against WFR. Food groups most likely to be misreported using proxy methods were beans and peas, dark green leafy vegetables, vitamin A-rich fruit and vegetables, and other fruits. Our study provides statistical evidence for overreporting of both list-based and open recall methods for assessing prevalence of MDD-W or ordinal food group diversity score in women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries. Operationalizing MDD-W through qualitative recall methods should consider potential trade-offs between accuracy and simplicity.
育龄妇女最低饮食多样性(MDD-W)已被验证为衡量微量营养素充足程度的人群水平替代指标,其指标数据收集方法建议采用列表法或开放式回忆法。目前尚无研究评估这两种非定量替代方法与称重食物记录(WFR)相比的有效性。我们评估了列表法和开放式回忆法与 WFR(即个体定量饮食评估的参考方法)在评估 MDD-W 和有序食物组多样性评分方面的测量一致性。采用非劣效性设计,从柬埔寨(n = 430)、埃塞俄比亚(n = 431)和赞比亚(n = 476)的育龄非孕妇中收集数据。在汇总样本(n = 1337)中,通过 McNemar 卡方检验、Cohen's kappa 和受试者工作特征(ROC)分析比较了两种代理方法和 WFR 比例的 MDD-W 比例。通过 Wilcoxon 配对符号秩检验、组内相关系数(ICC)和加权 kappa 比较了有序食物组多样性(0-10)。确定了代理方法最常报告错误的 MDD-W 食物组(即 I 型和 II 型错误)。我们的研究结果表明,两种代理方法与 WFR 之间在达到 MDD-W 的比例、有序食物组多样性评分和 ROC 曲线方面存在统计学显著差异(<0.001)。列表法和开放式回忆法分别比 WFR 多报告了 16%和 10%的妇女达到 MDD-W(达到 MDD-W 的比例:30%)。列表法或开放式回忆与 WFR 之间的 ICC 值分别为 0.50 和 0.55。简单和加权 kappa 值均表明列表法或开放式回忆与 WFR 之间存在中度一致性。使用代理方法最有可能报告错误的食物组是豆类和豌豆、深绿色叶菜类、富含维生素 A 的水果和蔬菜以及其他水果。我们的研究提供了统计证据,表明在中低收入国家,育龄妇女中 MDD-W 或有序食物组多样性评分的流行率评估中,列表法和开放式回忆法都存在报告偏高的情况。通过定性回忆方法实施 MDD-W 应该考虑准确性和简单性之间的潜在权衡。