Background/ObjectivesVegans and to a lesser extent vegetarians have low average circulating concentrations of vitamin B12; however, the relation between factors such as age or time on these diets and vitamin B12 concentrations is not clear. The objectives were to investigate differences in serum vitamin B12 and folate concentrations between omnivores, vegetarians and vegans and to ascertain whether vitamin B12 concentrations differed by age and time on the diet.Subjects/MethodsA cross-sectional analysis involving 689 men (226 omnivores, 231 vegetarians and 232 vegans) from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Oxford cohort.ResultsMean serum vitamin B12 was highest among omnivores (281, 95% CI: 270-292 pmol/l), intermediate in vegetarians (182, 95% CI: 175-189 pmol/l), and lowest in vegans (122, 95% CI: 117-127 pmol/l). Fifty-two percent of vegans, 7% of vegetarians and one omnivore were classified as vitamin B12 deficient (defined as serum vitamin B12 < 118 pmol/l). There was no significant association between age or duration of adherence to a vegetarian or a vegan diet and serum vitamin B12. In contrast, folate concentrations were highest among vegans, intermediate in vegetarians, and lowest in omnivores, but only two men (both omnivores) were categorised as folate deficient (defined as serum folate < 6.3 nmol/l).ConclusionVegans have lower vitamin B12 concentrations, but higher folate concentrations, than vegetarians and omnivores. Half of the vegans were categorised as vitamin B12 deficient and would be expected to have a higher risk of developing clinical symptoms related to vitamin B12 deficiency.

Our findings suggest that in community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults, the impact of combinations of mental and physical chronic conditions on functional disability and social participation restriction is substantial and differed by gender and age. Recognising the differences in the drivers of PAR by gender and age group will ultimately increase the efficiency of clinical and public health interventions.

BackgroundPromoting the collection and use of health related outcome measures (HROM) in daily practice has long been a goal for improving and assessing the effectiveness of care provided to patients. However, there has been a lack of consensus on what criteria to use to select outcomes or instruments, particularly in the context of primary health care settings where patients present with multiple concurrent health conditions and interventions are whole-health and person-focused. The purpose of this proposed study is to undertake a formal consensus exercise to establish criteria for selecting HROM (including patient-reported (PRO or PROM), observer-reported (ObsR)), clinician-reported (ClinRO) and performance related outcomes (PerfO) for use in shared decision-making, or in assessing, screening or monitoring health status in primary health care settings.MethodsA Delphi consensus online survey will be developed. Criteria for the Delphi panel participants to consider were selected from a targeted literature search. These initial criteria (n = 35) were grouped into four categories within which items will be presented in the Delphi survey, with the option to suggest additional items. Panel members invited to participate will include primary health care practitioners and administrators, policy-makers, researchers, and experts in HROM development; patients will be excluded. Standard Delphi methodology will be employed with an expectation of at least 3 rounds to achieve consensus (75% agreement). As the final list of criteria for selecting HROM emerges, panel members will be asked to provide opinions about potential weighting of items. The Delphi survey was approved by the Ethics Committee in the Faculty of Health Sciences at McMaster University.DiscussionPrevious literature establishing criteria for selecting HROM were developed with a focus on patient reported outcomes, psychological/ behavioural outcomes or outcomes for minimum core outcome sets in clinical trials. Although helpful, these criteria may not be applicable and feasible for application in a primary health care context where patients with multi-morbidity and complex interventions are typical and the constraints of providing health services differ from those in research studies. The findings from this Delphi consensus study will address a gap for establishing consensus on criteria for selecting HROM for use across primary health care settings.

With technological innovation, comprehensive dietary intake data can be collected in a wide range of studies and settings. The Automated Self-Administered 24-h (ASA24) Dietary Assessment Tool is a web-based system that guides respondents through 24-h recalls. The purpose of this paper is to describe lessons learned from five studies that assessed the feasibility and validity of ASA24 for capturing recall data among several population subgroups in Canada. These studies were conducted within a childcare setting (preschool children with reporting by parents), in public schools (children in grades 5–8; aged 10–13 years), and with community-based samples drawn from existing cohorts of adults and older adults. Themes emerged across studies regarding receptivity to completing ASA24, user experiences with the interface, and practical considerations for different populations. Overall, we found high acceptance of ASA24 among these diverse samples. However, the ASA24 interface was not intuitive for some participants, particularly young children and older adults. As well, technological challenges were encountered. These observations underscore the importance of piloting protocols using online tools, as well as consideration of the potential need for tailored resources to support study participants. Lessons gleaned can inform the effective use of technology-enabled dietary assessment tools in research.