Cargando…
Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study
This manuscript details the strategy employed for categorising food items based on their processing levels into the four NOVA groups. Semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS) I and II, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Growing...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453454/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34589209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jns.2021.72 |
_version_ | 1784570275215441920 |
---|---|
author | Khandpur, Neha Rossato, Sinara Drouin-Chartier, Jean-Philippe Du, Mengxi Steele, Euridice M. Sampson, Laura Monteiro, Carlos Zhang, Fang F. Willett, Walter Fung, Teresa T. Sun, Qi |
author_facet | Khandpur, Neha Rossato, Sinara Drouin-Chartier, Jean-Philippe Du, Mengxi Steele, Euridice M. Sampson, Laura Monteiro, Carlos Zhang, Fang F. Willett, Walter Fung, Teresa T. Sun, Qi |
author_sort | Khandpur, Neha |
collection | PubMed |
description | This manuscript details the strategy employed for categorising food items based on their processing levels into the four NOVA groups. Semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS) I and II, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Growing Up Today Studies (GUTS) I and II cohorts were used. The four-stage approach included: (i) the creation of a complete food list from the FFQs; (ii) assignment of food items to a NOVA group by three researchers; (iii) checking for consensus in categorisation and shortlisting discordant food items; (iv) discussions with experts and use of additional resources (research dieticians, cohort-specific documents, online grocery store scans) to guide the final categorisation of the short-listed items. At stage 1, 205 and 315 food items were compiled from the NHS and HPFS, and the GUTS FFQs, respectively. Over 70 % of food items from all cohorts were assigned to a NOVA group after stage 2. The remainder were shortlisted for further discussion (stage 3). After two rounds of reviews at stage 4, 95⋅6 % of food items (NHS + HPFS) and 90⋅7 % items (GUTS) were categorised. The remaining products were assigned to a non-ultra-processed food group (primary categorisation) and flagged for sensitivity analyses at which point they would be categorised as ultra-processed. Of all items in the food lists, 36⋅1 % in the NHS and HPFS cohorts and 43⋅5 % in the GUTS cohorts were identified as ultra-processed. Future work is needed to validate this approach. Documentation and discussions of alternative approaches for categorisation are encouraged. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8453454 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84534542021-09-28 Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study Khandpur, Neha Rossato, Sinara Drouin-Chartier, Jean-Philippe Du, Mengxi Steele, Euridice M. Sampson, Laura Monteiro, Carlos Zhang, Fang F. Willett, Walter Fung, Teresa T. Sun, Qi J Nutr Sci Research Article This manuscript details the strategy employed for categorising food items based on their processing levels into the four NOVA groups. Semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS) I and II, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Growing Up Today Studies (GUTS) I and II cohorts were used. The four-stage approach included: (i) the creation of a complete food list from the FFQs; (ii) assignment of food items to a NOVA group by three researchers; (iii) checking for consensus in categorisation and shortlisting discordant food items; (iv) discussions with experts and use of additional resources (research dieticians, cohort-specific documents, online grocery store scans) to guide the final categorisation of the short-listed items. At stage 1, 205 and 315 food items were compiled from the NHS and HPFS, and the GUTS FFQs, respectively. Over 70 % of food items from all cohorts were assigned to a NOVA group after stage 2. The remainder were shortlisted for further discussion (stage 3). After two rounds of reviews at stage 4, 95⋅6 % of food items (NHS + HPFS) and 90⋅7 % items (GUTS) were categorised. The remaining products were assigned to a non-ultra-processed food group (primary categorisation) and flagged for sensitivity analyses at which point they would be categorised as ultra-processed. Of all items in the food lists, 36⋅1 % in the NHS and HPFS cohorts and 43⋅5 % in the GUTS cohorts were identified as ultra-processed. Future work is needed to validate this approach. Documentation and discussions of alternative approaches for categorisation are encouraged. Cambridge University Press 2021-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8453454/ /pubmed/34589209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jns.2021.72 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Khandpur, Neha Rossato, Sinara Drouin-Chartier, Jean-Philippe Du, Mengxi Steele, Euridice M. Sampson, Laura Monteiro, Carlos Zhang, Fang F. Willett, Walter Fung, Teresa T. Sun, Qi Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study |
title | Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study |
title_full | Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study |
title_fullStr | Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study |
title_short | Categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the Nurses’ Health Studies, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and the Growing Up Today Study |
title_sort | categorising ultra-processed foods in large-scale cohort studies: evidence from the nurses’ health studies, the health professionals follow-up study, and the growing up today study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453454/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34589209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jns.2021.72 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT khandpurneha categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT rossatosinara categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT drouinchartierjeanphilippe categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT dumengxi categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT steeleeuridicem categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT sampsonlaura categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT monteirocarlos categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT zhangfangf categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT willettwalter categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT fungteresat categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy AT sunqi categorisingultraprocessedfoodsinlargescalecohortstudiesevidencefromthenurseshealthstudiesthehealthprofessionalsfollowupstudyandthegrowinguptodaystudy |