Search

Background: Nonquantitative list-based or open 24-h recalls (24-HRs) have been shown to overestimate the prevalence of Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W), as compared with direct quantitative observations. However, the main sources of error are unknown. Objectives: To assess the measurement agreement of proxy data collection methods for MDD-W, as compared with weighed food records (WFRs). Methods: Applying a noninferiority design, data were collected from 431 nonpregnant females in Ethiopia. MDD-W estimates from both proxy data collection methods were compared with the WFR prevalence by McNemar’s chi-square tests, Cohen’s Kappa, and receiver operator characteristic analyses. Ten-point food group diversity scores (FGDS) were compared by Bland–Altman plots, Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests, and weighted Kappa. Food group misclassifications were partitioned into errors related to respondent biases or the questionnaire development. Results: List-based and open 24-HRs overreported MDD-W by 8 and 4 percentage points, respectively, as compared with WFR (objective MDD-W prevalence: 8%). Furthermore, list-based 24-HRs overestimated FGDS by 0.4 points (limits of agreement [LOA]: −1.1, 2.0), whereas open 24-HRs led to a 0.3 point (LOA: −1.2, 1.7) overestimate. Food groups most likely to be misreported using proxy data collection methods were “pulses,” “nuts and seeds,” “dairy products,” and “other fruits.” Underreporting of consumption occurred among

Background: Panel data indicate that nonpregnant women's dietary diversity fluctuates across climatic seasons in low- and middle-income countries. The natural day-to-day variability in food group consumption during gestation is unknown.Objectives: A longitudinal study was conducted among pregnant women enrolled in the Micronutriments pour la Santé de la Mère et de l'Enfant study 3 randomized controlled efficacy trial [i.e., daily fortified balanced energy-protein supplement and an iron-folic acid (IFA) tablet compared with an IFA tablet only] to investigate the number of 24-hour recalls required to estimate usual prenatal food group (FG) diversity and the seasonality of pregnant women's dietary diversity in Houndé, Burkina Faso.Methods: FG consumption was assessed twice weekly by qualitative, list-based, 24-hour recalls among 1757 pregnant women (892 control, 865 intervention). The number of days needed to estimate a woman's usual prenatal 10-point FG diversity score was calculated using the within-subject coefficient of variation. Regression models, including truncated Fourier series, were fitted to assess seasonal variations in the FG diversity score and the probability of reaching Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W; i.e., ≥5 FGs).Results: The monthly mean FG scores (<5 FGs) and MDD-W prevalence (<45%) were low. Five list-based recalls allowed observed FG diversity to lie within 15% of the true mean in 90% of the estimations (mean ± SD, 40.4 ± 20.7 recalls per woman). Both the FG diversity score and prevalence achieving MDD-W showed responsiveness to seasonal variations, with peaks at the end of the dry season (i.e., April or May) and troughs in the rainy season (i.e., August).Conclusions: Five list-based recalls are sufficient to estimate usual FG diversity during gestation, although intra-annual seasonal patterns did modestly affect the FG diversity score and MDD-W prevalence. Thus, timing of repeated dietary surveys is critical to ensure nonbiased inferences of change and trends in Burkina Faso. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03533712. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nonquantitative list-based or open 24-h recalls (24-HRs) have been shown to overestimate the prevalence of Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W), as compared with direct quantitative observations. However, the main sources of error are unknown., Objectives: To assess the measurement agreement of proxy data collection methods for MDD-W, as compared with weighed food records (WFRs)., Methods: Applying a noninferiority design, data were collected from 431 nonpregnant females in Ethiopia. MDD-W estimates from both proxy data collection methods were compared with the WFR prevalence by McNemar's chi-square tests, Cohen's Kappa, and receiver operator characteristic analyses. Ten-point food group diversity scores (FGDS) were compared by Bland-Altman plots, Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests, and weighted Kappa. Food group misclassifications were partitioned into errors related to respondent biases or the questionnaire development., Results: List-based and open 24-HRs overreported MDD-W by 8 and 4 percentage points, respectively, as compared with WFR (objective MDD-W prevalence: 8%). Furthermore, list-based 24-HRs overestimated FGDS by 0.4 points (limits of agreement [LOA]: -1.1, 2.0), whereas open 24-HRs led to a 0.3 point (LOA: -1.2, 1.7) overestimate. Food groups most likely to be misreported using proxy data collection methods were "pulses," "nuts and seeds," "dairy products," and "other fruits." Underreporting of consumption occurred among <4% of females for all food groups. Furthermore, respondent biases were the predominant cause of food group overreporting, except for the "pulses" and "other vegetables" food groups, where food items incorrectly included on the food list were the main source of errors., Conclusions: Food group consumption misclassifications by proxy data collection methods were mainly attributable to females overreporting consumption because of respondent biases or the criterion for foods to be counted, rather than the suboptimal development of the food list in Ethiopia. To obtain precise and accurate MDD-W estimates at the (sub)national level, rigorous context-specific food list development, questionnaire pilot testing, and enumerator training are recommended to mitigate identified biases., (© 2024 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.)

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 (n = 430), Ethiopia (n = 431), and Zambia (n = 476). For the pooled sample (n = 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 (p < 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.

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 (n = 430), Ethiopia (n = 431), and Zambia (n = 476). For the pooled sample (n = 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 (p < 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]