↓ Skip to main content

Innovations in national nutrition surveys

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Innovations in national nutrition surveys
Published in
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, January 2013
DOI 10.1017/s0029665112002923
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this paper is to describe innovations taking place in national nutrition surveys in the UK and the challenges of undertaking innovations in such settings. National nutrition surveys must be representative of the overall population in characteristics such as socio-economic circumstances, age, sex and region. High response rates are critical. Dietary assessment innovations must therefore be suitable for all types of individuals, from the very young to the very old, for variable literacy and/or technical skills, different ethnic backgrounds and life circumstances, such as multiple carers and frequent travel. At the same time, national surveys need details on foods consumed. Current advances in dietary assessment use either technological innovations or simplified methods; neither lend themselves to national surveys. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) rolling programme, and the Diet and Nutrition Survey of Infants and Young Children (DNSIYC), currently use the 4-d estimated diary, a compromise for detail and respondent burden. Collection of food packaging enables identification of specific products. Providing space for location of eating, others eating, the television being on and eating at a table, adds to eating context information. Disaggregation of mixed dishes enables determination of true intakes of meat and fruit and vegetables. Measurement of nutritional status requires blood sampling and processing in DNSIYC clinics throughout the country and mobile units were used to optimise response. Hence, innovations in national surveys can and are being made but must take into account the paramount concerns of detail and response rate.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 23 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2013.
All research outputs
#24,638,299
of 27,376,552 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
#1,709
of 1,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,051
of 295,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,376,552 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.