A comparison of dietary estimates from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey to food and beverage purchase data

Emma McMahon, Thomas Wycherley, Kerin O’Dea, Julie Brimblecombe

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Abstract

Objective: We compared self-reported dietary intake from the very remote sample of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (VR-NATSINPAS; n=1363) to one year of food and beverage purchases from 20 very remote Indigenous Australian communities (servicing ~8500 individuals). Methods: Differences in food (% energy from food groups) and nutrients were analysed using t-test with unequal variance. Results: Per-capita energy estimates were not significantly different between the surveys (899 MJ/person/day [95% confidence interval -152,1950] p=0.094). Self-reported intakes of sugar, cereal products/dishes, beverages, fats/oils, milk products/dishes and confectionery were significantly lower than that purchased, while intakes of meat, vegetables, cereal-based dishes, fish, fruit and eggs were significantly higher (p<0.05). Conclusion: Differences between methods are consistent with differential reporting bias seen in self-reported dietary data. Implications: The NATSINPAS provides valuable, much-needed information about dietary intake; however self-reported data is prone to energy under-reporting and reporting bias. Purchase data can be used to track population-level food and nutrient availability in this population longitudinally, however further evidence is needed on approaches to estimate wastage and foods sourced outside the store. There is potential for these data to complement each other to inform nutrition policies and programs in this population.
LanguageEnglish
Pages598-603
Number of pages6
JournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
Volume41
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Dec 2017

Fingerprint

Food and Beverages
Health Surveys
Food
Population
Edible Grain
Surveys and Questionnaires
Nutrition Policy
Population Control
Beverages
Vegetables
Meat
Eggs
Fruit
Oils
Fishes
Milk
Fats
Confidence Intervals

Cite this

@article{f53d7d1cfbbf45af81b6d9c570e7d81a,
title = "A comparison of dietary estimates from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey to food and beverage purchase data",
abstract = "Objective: We compared self-reported dietary intake from the very remote sample of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (VR-NATSINPAS; n=1363) to one year of food and beverage purchases from 20 very remote Indigenous Australian communities (servicing ~8500 individuals). Methods: Differences in food (% energy from food groups) and nutrients were analysed using t-test with unequal variance. Results: Per-capita energy estimates were not significantly different between the surveys (899 MJ/person/day [95% confidence interval -152,1950] p=0.094). Self-reported intakes of sugar, cereal products/dishes, beverages, fats/oils, milk products/dishes and confectionery were significantly lower than that purchased, while intakes of meat, vegetables, cereal-based dishes, fish, fruit and eggs were significantly higher (p<0.05). Conclusion: Differences between methods are consistent with differential reporting bias seen in self-reported dietary data. Implications: The NATSINPAS provides valuable, much-needed information about dietary intake; however self-reported data is prone to energy under-reporting and reporting bias. Purchase data can be used to track population-level food and nutrient availability in this population longitudinally, however further evidence is needed on approaches to estimate wastage and foods sourced outside the store. There is potential for these data to complement each other to inform nutrition policies and programs in this population.",
keywords = "24-hour recall, dietary assessment, Indigenous Australians, population nutrition, store sales data",
author = "Emma McMahon and Thomas Wycherley and Kerin O’Dea and Julie Brimblecombe",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/1753-6405.12718",
volume = "41",
pages = "598--603",
journal = "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health",
issn = "1326-0200",
publisher = "Public Health Association of Australia",
number = "6",

}

A comparison of dietary estimates from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey to food and beverage purchase data. / McMahon, Emma; Wycherley, Thomas; O’Dea, Kerin; Brimblecombe, Julie.

In: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 41, No. 6, 01.12.2017, p. 598-603.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of dietary estimates from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey to food and beverage purchase data

AU - McMahon,Emma

AU - Wycherley,Thomas

AU - O’Dea,Kerin

AU - Brimblecombe,Julie

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Objective: We compared self-reported dietary intake from the very remote sample of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (VR-NATSINPAS; n=1363) to one year of food and beverage purchases from 20 very remote Indigenous Australian communities (servicing ~8500 individuals). Methods: Differences in food (% energy from food groups) and nutrients were analysed using t-test with unequal variance. Results: Per-capita energy estimates were not significantly different between the surveys (899 MJ/person/day [95% confidence interval -152,1950] p=0.094). Self-reported intakes of sugar, cereal products/dishes, beverages, fats/oils, milk products/dishes and confectionery were significantly lower than that purchased, while intakes of meat, vegetables, cereal-based dishes, fish, fruit and eggs were significantly higher (p<0.05). Conclusion: Differences between methods are consistent with differential reporting bias seen in self-reported dietary data. Implications: The NATSINPAS provides valuable, much-needed information about dietary intake; however self-reported data is prone to energy under-reporting and reporting bias. Purchase data can be used to track population-level food and nutrient availability in this population longitudinally, however further evidence is needed on approaches to estimate wastage and foods sourced outside the store. There is potential for these data to complement each other to inform nutrition policies and programs in this population.

AB - Objective: We compared self-reported dietary intake from the very remote sample of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (VR-NATSINPAS; n=1363) to one year of food and beverage purchases from 20 very remote Indigenous Australian communities (servicing ~8500 individuals). Methods: Differences in food (% energy from food groups) and nutrients were analysed using t-test with unequal variance. Results: Per-capita energy estimates were not significantly different between the surveys (899 MJ/person/day [95% confidence interval -152,1950] p=0.094). Self-reported intakes of sugar, cereal products/dishes, beverages, fats/oils, milk products/dishes and confectionery were significantly lower than that purchased, while intakes of meat, vegetables, cereal-based dishes, fish, fruit and eggs were significantly higher (p<0.05). Conclusion: Differences between methods are consistent with differential reporting bias seen in self-reported dietary data. Implications: The NATSINPAS provides valuable, much-needed information about dietary intake; however self-reported data is prone to energy under-reporting and reporting bias. Purchase data can be used to track population-level food and nutrient availability in this population longitudinally, however further evidence is needed on approaches to estimate wastage and foods sourced outside the store. There is potential for these data to complement each other to inform nutrition policies and programs in this population.

KW - 24-hour recall

KW - dietary assessment

KW - Indigenous Australians

KW - population nutrition

KW - store sales data

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031503885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1753-6405.12718

DO - 10.1111/1753-6405.12718

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 598

EP - 603

JO - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

T2 - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

JF - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

SN - 1326-0200

IS - 6

ER -