Development and Evaluation of a Food Choices Assessment Score (FCAS) Measuring the Healthfulness of Dietary Choices According to 2019 Canada's Food Guide/Canada's Dietary Guidelines, using the Canadian Health Measures Survey Food Frequency Questionnaire.

Samer Hamamji, Mavra Ahmed, Daniel Zaltz, Mary R L'Abbé
{"title":"Development and Evaluation of a Food Choices Assessment Score (FCAS) Measuring the Healthfulness of Dietary Choices According to 2019 Canada's Food Guide/Canada's Dietary Guidelines, using the Canadian Health Measures Survey Food Frequency Questionnaire.","authors":"Samer Hamamji, Mavra Ahmed, Daniel Zaltz, Mary R L'Abbé","doi":"10.1139/apnm-2024-0305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a Food Choices Assessment Score (FCAS) measuring alignment with 2019 Canada's Food Guide (CFG) and Canada's Dietary Guidelines (CDG) using a non-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) data. Cross-sectional data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) (2016 to 2019), including 6,459 participants (≥19 years) and a non-quantitative FFQ (~100 food items) were used. Content and construct validity and assessing reliability were used to evaluate the FCAS, including a comparison of mean FCAS among Canadian subgroups, calculating the FCAS for high quality diet menus, investigating the consistency of the FCAS with the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), as a healthy diet linked with lower cardiometabolic risks, and estimating Cronbach's alpha for reliability. The FCAS consisted of nine components for a total of 80 points. The FCAS captured the key recommendations of the 2019 CFG/CDG. Mean (SE) FCAS of the adult Canadian population was 29.3 (0.4) (/80) and was higher in females 32.2 (0.4) and non-smokers 30.3 (0.3) compared to males 26.7 (0.4) and smokers 23.6 (0.9), respectively (p<0.0001). FCAS yielded high scores for healthy menu samples of CDG (80/80) and DASH (70/80) diets. FCAS was correlated with DASH diet score (r=0.83). Cronbach's alpha was found to be moderate (0.5), as expected, which confirmed the multidimensionality of the FCAS components in reflecting different characteristics of diet quality. These analyses suggest adequate validity with multidimensional consistency of the 2019 CFG/CDG FCAS as a new tool for use with non-quantitative FFQ data.</p>","PeriodicalId":93878,"journal":{"name":"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2024-0305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a Food Choices Assessment Score (FCAS) measuring alignment with 2019 Canada's Food Guide (CFG) and Canada's Dietary Guidelines (CDG) using a non-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) data. Cross-sectional data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) (2016 to 2019), including 6,459 participants (≥19 years) and a non-quantitative FFQ (~100 food items) were used. Content and construct validity and assessing reliability were used to evaluate the FCAS, including a comparison of mean FCAS among Canadian subgroups, calculating the FCAS for high quality diet menus, investigating the consistency of the FCAS with the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), as a healthy diet linked with lower cardiometabolic risks, and estimating Cronbach's alpha for reliability. The FCAS consisted of nine components for a total of 80 points. The FCAS captured the key recommendations of the 2019 CFG/CDG. Mean (SE) FCAS of the adult Canadian population was 29.3 (0.4) (/80) and was higher in females 32.2 (0.4) and non-smokers 30.3 (0.3) compared to males 26.7 (0.4) and smokers 23.6 (0.9), respectively (p<0.0001). FCAS yielded high scores for healthy menu samples of CDG (80/80) and DASH (70/80) diets. FCAS was correlated with DASH diet score (r=0.83). Cronbach's alpha was found to be moderate (0.5), as expected, which confirmed the multidimensionality of the FCAS components in reflecting different characteristics of diet quality. These analyses suggest adequate validity with multidimensional consistency of the 2019 CFG/CDG FCAS as a new tool for use with non-quantitative FFQ data.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据2019年加拿大食品指南/加拿大膳食指南,使用加拿大健康措施调查食物频率问卷,制定和评估食品选择评估分数(FCAS)衡量饮食选择的健康性。
本研究的目的是使用非定量食物频率问卷(FFQ)数据,开发和评估与2019年加拿大食品指南(CFG)和加拿大膳食指南(CDG)相一致的食物选择评估分数(FCAS)。横断面数据来自加拿大健康措施调查(CHMS)(2016年至2019年),包括6,459名参与者(≥19岁)和非定量FFQ(~100种食物)。使用内容效度和结构效度以及评估信度来评估FCAS,包括比较加拿大亚组的平均FCAS,计算高质量饮食菜单的FCAS,调查FCAS与饮食方法来阻止高血压(DASH)的一致性,作为一种与较低心脏代谢风险相关的健康饮食,并估计Cronbach's alpha的可靠性。FCAS由9个部分组成,共80分。FCAS采纳了2019年CFG/CDG的主要建议。加拿大成年人口的平均(SE) FCAS为29.3(0.4)(/80),女性32.2(0.4)和非吸烟者30.3(0.3)高于男性26.7(0.4)和吸烟者23.6 (0.9)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effects of daylong exposure to indoor overheating on enterocyte damage and inflammatory responses in older adults: A randomized crossover trial. Stretching, Isometrics, and Aerobic Exercise for Decreasing Blood Pressure Post-Exercise: A Randomized Cross-Over Study. Evaluation of an online Cardiometabolic and Weight Loss Program. A mixed methods study. Development and Evaluation of a Food Choices Assessment Score (FCAS) Measuring the Healthfulness of Dietary Choices According to 2019 Canada's Food Guide/Canada's Dietary Guidelines, using the Canadian Health Measures Survey Food Frequency Questionnaire. Passive Heat Therapy for Cardiovascular Disease: Current Evidence and Future Directions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1