Assessment of a rapid method for assessing adequacy of calcium intake

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement between the 24 h diet recall and a short 17-item 24 h food intake recall in assessing calcium intake. The calcium intakes of 21 women over the age of 50 were assessed by both methods on four occasions. The mean calcium intakes were similar using both methods, being 1034+/-398 mg/day by 24 h diet recall and 822+/-412 mg/day (SD) by 17-item 24 h food intake recall. The 17-item 24 h food intake recall tended to underestimate calcium intake compared with the 24 h diet recall, with the limits of agreement being between -1197 and -727 below and 370 and 682 mg/day above 24 h diet recall values over the four assessments. The 17-item 24 h food intake recall identified 8% more women with inadequate calcium intakes than the 24 h diet recall method did. Although there is poor agreement in calcium intake between the 24 h diet recall method and the 17-item 24 h food intake recall, the latter provides a quick and simple means for assessing extremes of calcium intake and whether day to day calcium intake is adequate.

Differences in the quantitative and qualitative performance of a calcium‐specific food frequency questionnaire across age and sex

“…Similar to our study, respective proportions in the literature vary from 0% to approximately 3.5% for gross misclassification and from approximately 80% to 95% for correct classification (Wilson & Horwath, 1996; Taylor & Goulding, 1998; Chee et al. , 2002; Green et al. , 2002; Huybrechts et al.…”

“…Underestimation of calcium intake by the food frequency method is not uncommon (Taylor & Goulding, 1998; Pasco et al. , 2000; Green et al. , 2002; Huybrechts et al.…”

“…, 2002) estimated food records, as well as 24‐h diet recalls (Haines et al. , 1994; Green et al. , 2002) and full length FFQs (Brown & Griebler, 1993; Blalock et al.…”

Relative validation of a short food frequency questionnaire to assess calcium intake in older adults

“…Compared with the present study, studies that have examined bias and limits of agreement 16,19,21,22,24,33,34 report greater mean difference (31–144 mg) between calcium estimated by a food record and calcium estimated by a FFQ in addition to a clinically unacceptable range for assessment of individual calcium intake (710 to 1,428 mg). One exception to this is the study performed by Montomoli et al (2002), 20 with mean bias of only 11.3 mg and 95% limits of agreement from ‐244 to 222.…”

“…While FFQs assessing calcium intake have been validated in adult and postmenopausal women both in Australia and elsewhere, 13–23 relative validation studies that include men are scarce 24 . Both calcium‐specific FFQs validated in Australian populations did not include men in their study sample 14,19 .…”