A national FFQ for the Netherlands (the FFQ-NL1.0): development and compatibility with existing Dutch FFQs. Issue 12 (22nd April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Eussen, Simone JPM; van Dongen, Martien CJM; Wijckmans, Nicole EG; Meijboom, Saskia; Brants, Henny AM; de Vries, Jeanne HM; Bueno-de-Mesquita, H Bas; Geelen, Anouk; Sluik, Diewertje; Feskens, Edith JM; Ocké, Marga C; Dagnelie, Pieter C
• Is Part Of: Public health nutrition. Volume 21:Issue 12(2018)
• Page Start: 2221
• Page End: 2229
• Publication Date: 2018-04-22
• Subjects: FFQ, -- Dietary assessment, -- Standardization, -- Development, -- Compatibility; Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutrition policy -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; 613.2
• DOI: 10.1017/S1368980018000885
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1368-9800

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: In the Netherlands, various FFQs have been administered in large cohort studies, which hampers comparison and pooling of dietary data. The present study aimed to describe the development of a standardized Dutch FFQ, FFQ-NL1.0, and assess its compatibility with existing Dutch FFQs. Design: Dutch FFQTOOL TM was used to develop the FFQ-NL1.0 by selecting food items with the largest contributions to total intake and explained variance in intake of energy and thirty-nine nutrients in adults aged 25–69 years from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS) 2007–2010. Compatibility with the Maastricht-FFQ, Wageningen-FFQ and EPICNL-FFQ was assessed by comparing the number of food items, the covered energy and nutrient intake, and the covered variance in intake. Results: FFQ-NL1.0 comprised 160 food items, v . 253, 183 and 154 food items for the Maastricht-FFQ, Wageningen-FFQ and EPICNL-FFQ, respectively. FFQ-NL1.0 covered ≥85 % of energy and all nutrients reported in the DNFCS. Covered variance in intake ranged from 57 to 99 % for energy and macronutrients, and from 45 to 93 % for micronutrients. Differences between FFQ-NL1.0 and the other FFQs in covered nutrient intake and covered variance in intake were <5 % for energy and all macronutrients. For micronutrients, differences between FFQ-NL and other FFQs in covered level of intake were <15 %, but differences in covered variance were much larger, the maximum difference being 36 %. Conclusions: The FFQ-NL1.0 was compatible with other FFQs regarding energy and macronutrient intake. However, compatibility for covered variance of intake was limited for some of the micronutrients. If implemented in existing cohorts, it is advised to administer the old and the new FFQ in combination to derive calibration factors.