Cargando…

Relative validity and reliability of a diet risk score (DRS) for clinical practice

INTRODUCTION: Adherence to cardioprotective dietary patterns can reduce risk for developing cardiometabolic disease. Rates of diet assessment and counselling by physicians are low. Use of a diet screener that rapidly identifies individuals at higher risk due to suboptimal dietary choices could incre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnston, Emily A, Petersen, Kristina S, Beasley, Jeannette M, Krussig, Tobias, Mitchell, Diane C, Van Horn, Linda V, Weiss, Rick, Kris-Etherton, Penny M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7841834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33521537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000134
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Adherence to cardioprotective dietary patterns can reduce risk for developing cardiometabolic disease. Rates of diet assessment and counselling by physicians are low. Use of a diet screener that rapidly identifies individuals at higher risk due to suboptimal dietary choices could increase diet assessment and brief counselling in clinical care. METHODS: We evaluated the relative validity and reliability of a 9-item diet risk score (DRS) based on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015, a comprehensive measure of diet quality calculated from a 160-item, validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). We hypothesised that DRS (0 (low risk) to 27 (high risk)) would inversely correlate with HEI-2015 score. Adults aged 35 to 75 years were recruited from a national research volunteer registry (ResearchMatch.org) and completed the DRS and FFQ in random order on one occasion. To measure reliability, participants repeated the DRS within 3 months. RESULTS: In total, 126 adults (87% female) completed the study. Mean HEI-2015 score was 63.3 (95% CI: 61.1 to 65.4); mean DRS was 11.8 (95% CI: 10.8 to 12.8). DRS and HEI-2015 scores were inversely correlated (r=−0.6, p<0.001; R(2)=0.36). The DRS ranked 37% (n=47) of subjects in the same quintile, 41% (n=52) within ±1 quintile of the HEI-2015 (weighted κ: 0.28). The DRS had high reliability (n=102, ICC: 0.83). DRS mean completion time was 2 min. CONCLUSIONS: The DRS is a brief diet assessment tool, validated against a FFQ, that can reliably identify patients with reported suboptimal intake. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of DRS-guided diet assessment in clinical care. Trial registration details ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03805373).