Skip to main content
×
Home

Development of a brief, reliable and valid diet assessment tool for impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes: the UK Diabetes and Diet Questionnaire

  • Clare Y England (a1) (a2), Janice L Thompson (a3), Russ Jago (a1), Ashley R Cooper (a1) (a4) and Rob C Andrews (a2) (a4)...
Abstract
Abstract Objective

Dietary advice is fundamental in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Advice is improved by individual assessment but existing methods are time-consuming and require expertise. We developed a twenty-five-item questionnaire, the UK Diabetes and Diet Questionnaire (UKDDQ), for quick assessment of an individual’s diet. The present study examined the UKDDQ’s repeatability and relative validity compared with 4 d food diaries.

Design

The UKDDQ was completed twice with a median 3 d gap (interquartile range=1–7 d) between tests. A 4 d food diary was completed after the second UKDDQ. Diaries were analysed and food groups were mapped on to the UKDDQ. Absolute agreement between total scores was examined using intra-class correlation (ICC). Agreement for individual items was tested with Cohen’s weighted kappa (κ w).

Setting

South West of England.

Subjects

Adults (n 177, 50·3 % women) with, or at high risk for, T2DM; mean age 55·8 (sd 8·6) years, mean BMI 34·4 (sd 7·3) kg/m2; participants were 91 % White British.

Results

The UKDDQ showed excellent repeatability (ICC=0·90 (0·82, 0·94)). For individual items, κ w ranged from 0·43 (‘savoury pastries’) to 0·87 (‘vegetables’). Total scores from the UKDDQ and food diaries compared well (ICC=0·54 (0·27, 0·70)). Agreement for individual items varied and was good for ‘alcohol’ (κ w=0·71) and ‘breakfast cereals’ (κ w=0·70), with no agreement for ‘vegetables’ (κ w=0·08) or ‘savoury pastries’ (κ w=0·09).

Conclusions

The UKDDQ is a new British dietary questionnaire with excellent repeatability. Comparisons with food diaries found agreements similar to those for international dietary questionnaires currently in use. It targets foods and habits important in diabetes prevention and management.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Development of a brief, reliable and valid diet assessment tool for impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes: the UK Diabetes and Diet Questionnaire
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Development of a brief, reliable and valid diet assessment tool for impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes: the UK Diabetes and Diet Questionnaire
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Development of a brief, reliable and valid diet assessment tool for impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes: the UK Diabetes and Diet Questionnaire
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Corresponding author
* Corresponding author: Email clare.england@bristol.ac.uk
References
Hide All
1. Inzucchi S, Bergenstal R, Buse J et al. (2012) Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 55, 15771596.
2. Nagelkerk J, Reick K & Meengs L (2006) Perceived barriers and effective strategies to diabetes self-management. J Adv Nurs 54, 151158.
3. Yannakoulia M (2006) Eating behavior among type 2 diabetic patients: a poorly recognized aspect in a poorly controlled disease. Rev Diabet Stud 3, 1116.
4. Connor H, Bunn E & McGough N (2004) Why do people with diabetes contact Diabetes UK for dietary advice? Pract Diabetes Int 21, 253255.
5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2015) Type 2 Diabetes in Adults. London: NICE.
6. McClinchy J, Dickinson A, Barron D et al. (2011) Practitioner and lay perspectives of the service provision of nutrition information leaflets in primary care. J Hum Nutr Diet 24, 552559.
7. Jansink R, Braspenning J, van der Weijden T et al. (2010) Primary care nurses struggle with lifestyle counseling in diabetes care: a qualitative analysis. BMC Fam Pract 11, 41.
8. Phillips K, Wood F, Spanou C et al. (2012) Counselling patients about behaviour change: the challenge of talking about diet. Br J Gen Pract 62, e13e21.
9. Parry Strong A, Lyon J, Stern K et al. (2014) Five-year survey of Wellington practice nurses delivering dietary advice to people with type 2 diabetes. Nutr Diet 71, 2227.
10. Fries E, Edinboro P, McClish D et al. (2005) Randomized trial of a low-intensity dietary intervention in rural residents: the Rural Physician Cancer Prevention Project. Am J Prev Med 28, 162168.
11. Delichatsios HK, Hunt MK, Lobb R et al. (2001) EatSmart: efficacy of a multifaceted preventive nutrition intervention in clinical practice. Prev Med 33, 9198.
12. England CY, Andrews RC, Jago R et al. (2015) A systematic review of brief dietary questionnaires suitable for clinical use in the prevention and management of obesity, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Eur J Clin Nutr 69, 9771003.
13. Roe L, Strong C, Whiteside C et al. (1994) Dietary intervention in primary care: validity of the DINE method for diet assessment. Fam Pract 11, 375381.
14. Heller RF, Tunstall Pedoe HD & Rose G (1981) A simple method of assessing the effect of dietary advice to reduce plasma cholesterol. Prev Med 10, 364370.
15. Keeney S, Hasson F & McKenna HP (2011) The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
16. Dyson PA, Kelly T, Deakin T et al. (2011) Diabetes UK evidence-based nutrition guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes. Diabetic Med 28, 12821288.
17. Diabetes UK (2014) Top Tips for Healthy Eating. http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Managing-your-diabetes/Healthy-eating/Top-tips/ (accessed March 2014).
18. Andrews RC, Cooper AR, Montgomery AA et al. (2011) Diet or diet plus physical activity versus usual care in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: the Early ACTID randomised controlled trial. Lancet 378, 129139.
19. England CY, Andrews R, Jago R et al. (2014) Changes in reported food intake in adults with type 2 diabetes in response to a nonprescriptive dietary intervention. J Hum Nutr Diet 27, 311321.
20. UK Clinical Research Network (2015) Sedentary time and metabolic health in people with (or at risk of) type 2 diabetes: UKCRN 16015. http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=16105 (accessed October 2015).
21. Wreiden WL & Barton KL (2006) Calculation and Collation of Typical Food Portion Sizes for Adults Aged 19–64 and Older People Aged 65 and Over. Final Technical Report to the Food Standards Agency. http://www.foodbase.org.uk/results.php?f_report_id=82 (accessed April 2010).
22. Public Health England (2015) Composition of Foods Integrated Dataset. London: Public Health England.
23. Henderson L, Gregory J & Swan G (2002) The National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Adults Aged 19 to 64 Years. London: The Stationery Office; available at http://tna.europarchive.org/20110116113217/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ndnsprintedreport.pdf
24. Streiner DL & Norman GR (2008) Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Landis JR & Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159174.
26. IBM Technical Support (2003) Weighted Kappa, Kappa for ordered categories. https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21477357 (accessed March 2014).
27. Svilaas A, Strom EC, Svilaas T et al. (2002) Reproducibility and validity of a short food questionnaire for the assessment of dietary habits. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 12, 6070.
28. Schroder H, Fito M, Estruch R et al. (2011) A short screener is valid for assessing Mediterranean diet adherence among older Spanish men and women. J Nutr 141, 11401145.
29. Cade JE, Burley VJ, Warm DL et al. (2004) Food-frequency questionnaires: a review of their design, validation and utilisation. Nutr Res Rev 17, 522.
30. Thompson FE & Subar AF (2012) Dietary assessment methodology. In Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease , pp. 546 [AM Coulston, CJ Boushey, M Ferruzzi et al., (editors]. New York: Elsevier Science.
31. Hedrick V, Dietrich A, Estabrooks P et al. (2012) Dietary biomarkers: advances, limitations and future directions. Nutr J 11, 109.
32. Poslusna K, Ruprich J, de Vries JHM et al. (2009) Misreporting of energy and micronutrient intake estimated by food records and 24 hour recalls, control and adjustment methods in practice. Br J Nutr 101, Suppl. S2, S73S85.
33. Yaroch AL, Tooze J, Thompson FE et al. (2012) Evaluation of three short dietary instruments to assess fruit and vegetable intake: the National Cancer Institute’s food attitudes and behaviors survey. J Acad Nutr Diet 112, 15701577.
34. Mainvil LA, Horwath CC, McKenzie JE et al. (2011) Validation of brief instruments to measure adult fruit and vegetable consumption. Appetite 56, 111117.
35. Roark RA & Niederhauser VP (2013) Fruit and vegetable intake: issues with definition and measurement. Public Health Nutr 16, 27.
36. Lemon CC, Lacey K, Lohse B et al. (2004) Outcomes monitoring of health, behavior, and quality of life after nutrition intervention in adults with type 2 diabetes. J Am Diet Assoc 104, 18051815.
37. Pastors JG, Warshaw H, Daly A et al. (2002) The evidence for the effectiveness of medical nutrition therapy in diabetes management. Diabetes Care 25, 608613.
38. Harding S (2011) Dietitians in primary care promote weight loss and glycated haemoglobin reductions. J Hum Nutr Diet 24, 389390.
39. Svilaas AP, Johansen SG, Vebenstad G et al. (2011) Assessment of diet and lifestyle. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 131, 454.
40. Wirt A & Collins CE (2009) Diet quality – what is it and does it matter? Public Health Nutr 12, 24732492.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary Materials

England supplementary material
England supplementary material 1

 PDF (582 KB)
582 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

England supplementary material 2
England supplementary material 2

 Word (31 KB)
31 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 86
Total number of PDF views: 528 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 969 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 9th September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.