Title |
DIET@NET: Best Practice Guidelines for dietary assessment in health research
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0962-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Janet E. Cade, Marisol Warthon-Medina, Salwa Albar, Nisreen A. Alwan, Andrew Ness, Mark Roe, Petra A. Wark, Katharine Greathead, Victoria J. Burley, Paul Finglas, Laura Johnson, Polly Page, Katharine Roberts, Toni Steer, Jozef Hooson, Darren C. Greenwood, Sian Robinson, on behalf of the DIET@NET consortium |
Abstract |
Dietary assessment is complex, and strategies to select the most appropriate dietary assessment tool (DAT) in epidemiological research are needed. The DIETary Assessment Tool NETwork (DIET@NET) aimed to establish expert consensus on Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) for dietary assessment using self-report. The BPGs were developed using the Delphi technique. Two Delphi rounds were conducted. A total of 131 experts were invited, and of these 65 accepted, with 48 completing Delphi round I and 51 completing Delphi round II. In all, a total of 57 experts from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia commented on the 47 suggested guidelines. Forty-three guidelines were generated, grouped into the following four stages: Stage I. Define what is to be measured in terms of dietary intake (what? who? and when?); Stage II. Investigate different types of DATs; Stage III. Evaluate existing tools to select the most appropriate DAT by evaluating published validation studies; Stage IV. Think through the implementation of the chosen DAT and consider sources of potential biases. The Delphi technique consolidated expert views on best practice in assessing dietary intake. The BPGs provide a valuable guide for health researchers to choose the most appropriate dietary assessment method for their studies. These guidelines will be accessible through the Nutritools website, www.nutritools.org . |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 33 | 37% |
Ireland | 8 | 9% |
Australia | 5 | 6% |
United States | 4 | 4% |
Finland | 2 | 2% |
Saudi Arabia | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
Italy | 1 | 1% |
Isle of Man | 1 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 4% |
Unknown | 29 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 34 | 38% |
Scientists | 32 | 36% |
Members of the public | 24 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 215 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 14% |
Student > Master | 28 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 26 | 12% |
Researcher | 24 | 11% |
Other | 10 | 5% |
Other | 35 | 16% |
Unknown | 62 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 19% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 18% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 7% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 5% |
Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
Other | 35 | 16% |
Unknown | 71 | 33% |