School of Health Administration, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
J Nutr. 2024 Nov;154(11):3424-3436. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.09.002. Epub 2024 Sep 11.
Different food price sources and dietary assessment tools may impact the estimation of diet costs and hamper our understanding of the relationship between diet costs and dietary intakes.
We aimed to investigate the effect of 3 diet cost derivation methods, with increasing numbers of food prices and geographic specificity, holding consistent the dietary assessment tool, on the estimation of diet costs overall and by food group.
We matched 24-h dietary recall data from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition (CCHS-N) to food price data from 3 Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI) food price lists; national short list, national long list, and provincial long list. We compared the daily ($/day) and energy-adjusted ($/2000 kcal) diet costs overall and by food groups for the overall population (4+), children (4-18), and adults (19+).
The proportion of dietary intakes (grams) that were covered by CPI prices significantly increased from the national short list to the national long list but did not significantly differ from the national long list to the provincial long list. The national short list resulted in the highest daily and energy-adjusted diet costs overall. No difference in diet costs was noted between the national and provincial long lists. Diet costs for 4 food groups-additions, sweets, fruits, and vegetables, which were poorly covered by the national short list-significantly differed using the national and provincial long lists. All 3 diet cost methods were significantly correlated with energy intakes; however, a strong/very strong correlation was detected for children, and a weak/moderate correlation for adults.
The choice of food price data may introduce bias in the diet cost estimate, as well as limiting our understanding of how individuals allocate their diet costs. Refinement of diet cost estimation methodology and measures can strengthen future studies of how consumers allocate their purchases to their diets.
不同的食物价格来源和饮食评估工具可能会影响饮食成本的估计，并阻碍我们对饮食成本与饮食摄入量之间关系的理解。
我们旨在研究 3 种饮食成本推导方法的效果，这些方法使用了越来越多的食物价格和地域特异性，同时保持饮食评估工具的一致性，以评估总体和按食物组划分的饮食成本。
我们将 2015 年加拿大社区健康调查-营养（CCHS-N）的 24 小时饮食回忆数据与来自 3 种加拿大消费者价格指数（CPI）食物价格清单的食物价格数据相匹配；全国短名单、全国长名单和省级长名单。我们比较了总体人群（4 岁及以上）、儿童（4-18 岁）和成年人（19 岁及以上）的总体和按食物组划分的每日（$/天）和能量调整（$/2000 千卡）饮食成本。
CPI 价格涵盖的饮食摄入量（克）比例从全国短名单到全国长名单显著增加，但从全国长名单到省级长名单没有显著差异。全国短名单导致总体上的每日和能量调整饮食成本最高。在全国和省级长名单之间，饮食成本没有差异。全国短名单覆盖较差的 4 种食物组-添加物、甜食、水果和蔬菜的饮食成本，使用全国和省级长名单时差异显著。所有 3 种饮食成本方法与能量摄入量均呈显著相关；然而，对于儿童，相关性很强/非常强，对于成年人，相关性较弱/中等。
食物价格数据的选择可能会对饮食成本估计产生偏差，并限制我们对个人如何分配饮食成本的理解。饮食成本估计方法和措施的改进可以加强未来关于消费者如何将购买分配给饮食的研究。
