1 / 24

The Treatwell 5-a-Day Study

The Treatwell 5-a-Day Study. Hebert JR, Peterson KE, Hurley TG, Stoddard AM, Cohen N, Field AE, Sorensen G. The effect of social desirability trait on self-reported dietary measures among multi-ethnic female health center employees. Ann Epidemiol 2001; 11:417-427.

haydenm
Download Presentation

The Treatwell 5-a-Day Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Treatwell 5-a-Day Study Hebert JR, Peterson KE, Hurley TG, Stoddard AM, Cohen N, Field AE, Sorensen G. The effect of social desirability trait on self-reported dietary measures among multi-ethnic female health center employees. Ann Epidemiol 2001; 11:417-427. • Multi-ethnic sample of community health center workers • Representing three control sites • Multiple 24HR as “relative criterion” • Uses three methods for comparison, including Harvard/Channing FFQ • Predominantly (~85% women)

  2. The Treatwell 5-a-Day Study – Social Desirability Results by Ethnicity, Women Only Black Hispanic White (n=23) (n=31) (n=30) Variable: b SEb b SEb b SEb Total Energy Intake (kcal/d) 15.1 31.1 18.9 20.0 -4.5 15.9 Total Fat Intake (g/d) 0.64 0.94 1.03 1.07 -0.23 0.62

  3. The Treatwell 5-a-Day Study – Results by Occupational Category, Women Only Non-Professional Professional p-value for (n=52) (n=39) Ho: b<coll=b>coll Variable: b SEb b SEb Total Energy Intake (kcal/d) 31.8 18.5 -20.6 14.5 <0.005 0.57 Total Fat Intake (g/d) 1.12 0.67 -0.19 <0.05 ns 0.037 Fruit (servings/d) - FFQ 0.011 0.042 -0.004 Fruit (servings/1000kcal/d) -0.008 0.031 0.002 0.029 ns

  4. The Treatwell 5-a-Day Study – Results by Education, Women Only College Degree or More p-value for Less Than College (n=52) H o: b<coll=b>coll (n=39) Variable: b SEb b SEb Total Energy Intake (kcal/d) 36.1 20.0 -23.6 12.8 <0.001 Total Fat Intake (g/d) 1.23 0.78 -0.50 0.41 <0.001 Fruit (servings/d) - FFQ -0.003 0.046 -0.027 0.033 ns Fruit (servings/1000kcal/d) -0.005 0.032 -0.002 0.026 ns

  5. The Treatwell 5-a-Day Study – Conclusions The FFQ also appears to be biased by social desirability in women, but ….. ¨ the critical factor determining the bias is education which is ….. ¨ more important than occupational category or ethnicity/race. ¨ As in the WATCH study, bias is oriented toward fat/energy intake ¨

  6. The Energy Study, Worcester, MA - 1997 Hebert JR, Ebbeling CB, Matthews CE, Ma Y, Clemow L, Hurley TG, Druker S. Systematic errors in middle-aged women's estimates of energy intake: Comparing three self-report measures to total energy expenditure from doubly labeled water. Ann Epidemiol 2001; (In Press):00-000. ¨ First such study to focus on the most widely used FFQ (NCI/WHI) ¨ First study to focus on these biases employing stable isotope methods for comparison (TEE from DLW)

  7. Overview of Study Doubly-Labeled Water Metabolic Period 7 14 0 1 days • Baseline questionnaires • Demographic data • (education) • Social desirability (Marlowe-Crowne Scale, 33-item, true/false) • Food frequency questionnaire • (WHI)

  8. Description of the Study Population, The Energy Study (N=73) n % Married 47 64.4 White 72 98.6 Pre-menopausal 41 56.2 Bachelors Degree or more 33 45.2 Employed Full Time 44 60.3 Professional, Managerial Work 33 55.0 Current Smoker 7 9.6 Sedentary 38 52.1

  9. Further description of the Study Population, The Energy Study (N=73) Interquartile Range Mean Standard Deviation Minimum 25% 75% Maximum Age (years) 49.0 6.8 40 44 53 65 Body Mass (kg) 70.0 10.4 43.9 62.1 76.9 90.5 BMI (kg/m2) 27.1 4.1 18.7 24.5 29.8 38.2 Fat-Free Mass (kg) 42.4 5.1 32.3 38.1 46.3 53.7 Social Desirability Score 17.4 5.9 4.0 15.0 22.0 29.0

  10. Further description of the Study Population, The Energy Study (N=73) Interquartile Range Mean Standard Deviation Minimum 25% 75% Maximum 380 1378 1830 2318 3337 TEE from DLW (kcal/d) 2102 24-Hour Recall-Derived Data (7-day average) Energy Intake (kcal/d) 1820 464 1147 1494 2002 3566 Food Quotient 0.90 0.03 0.82 0.88 0.92 0.99 FFQ Energy (kcal/d) Day-0 Administration 1735 764 429 1229 2089 4986 Day-14 Administration 1622 594 639 1186 2028 3703

  11. Social Desirability Bias (kcal/day/point) by Education Level (FFQ-Derived Energy Intake Versus TEE from DLW, Beginning of Metabolic Period), The Energy Study (N=73). All Education Levels: Whole Sample (n=73) -36.6 (-65.7, -7.5) Excluding “Outliers ” (n=69) -12.2 (-34.7, 13.1) High Education (college +) Whole Sample (n=33) -73.3 (-113., -32.9) Excluding “Outliers ” (n=31) -31.9 (-63.6, -0.2)

  12. Social Desirability Bias (kcal/day/point) by Education Level (FFQ-Derived Energy Intake Versus TEEfrom DLW, End of Metabolic Period), The Energy Study (N=73). All Education Levels: Whole Sample (n=73) -10.8 (-34.7, 13.1) Excluding “Outliers ” (n=72) -13.7 (-35.8, 8.4) High Education (college +) Whole Sample (n=33) -21.8 (-53.5, 9.9)

  13. Social Desirability Bias 50 25 0 -25 Bias (kcal/day/point) -50 -75 Beginning -100 End -125 -150 Education Whole Sample(n=75) High (n=33) Low (n=42)

  14. Revisiting WATCH --- Why? Hebert JR, Ma Y, Ebbeling CB, Matthews CE, Ockene IS. Self-report data. Compliance in Healthcare and Research. Armonk, NY: Futura, 2001:163-179. Is there an effect of education when cut at college+? ¨ What happens with these biases after an intervention? ¨

  15. Social Approval Bias in Males, by Education, WATCH Study, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1991-1995. < College (n=150) Social Approval BMI Score Baseline 29.8 (0.003) 29.1 (0.07) Total Energy (kcal/day) 1.60 (0.07) Total Fat (g/day) 1.63 (0.004) Total SFA (g/day) 0.59 (0.003) 0.53 (0.09) One-year < College (n=112) Total Energy (kcal/day) 36.7 (0.0003) 53.4 (0.001) Total Fat (g/day) 1.50 (0.004) 1.72 (0.04) Total SFA (g/day) 0.41 (0.02) 0.57 (0.05)

  16. Social Approval Bias in Males, by Education, WATCH Study, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1991-1995. ³ College (n=70) Social Approval BMI Score Baseline Total Energy (kcal/day) 8.6 (0.49) 48.6 (0.05) Total Fat (g/day) 0.58 (0.39) 3.87 (0.05) Total SFA (g/day) 0.26 (0.26) 1.34 (0.07) One-year ³ College (n=56) Total Energy (kcal/day) 19.9 (0.14) 33.7 (0.14) Total Fat (g/day) 1.05 (0.11) 0.70 (0.52) Total SFA (g/day) 0.25 (0.18) 0.15 (0.63)

  17. Social Approval and Social Desirability Bias in Females, by Education, WATCH Study, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1991-1995. < College (n=220) Social Approval Social Desirability Score Score BMI Baseline Total Energy (kcal/day) -0.2 (0.97) -14.8 (0.14) 6.9 (0.43) Total Fat (g/day) -0.02 (0.95) -0.53 (0.34) 0.25 (0.61) 0.05 (0.75) Total SFA (g/day) 0.03 (0.76) -0.14 (0.45) One-year < College (n=172) Total Energy (kcal/day) 11.0 (0.07) -3.6 (0.77) 11.1 (0.32) Total Fat (g/day) 0.36 (0.32) -0.57 (0.43) 0.36 (0.58) Total SFA (g/day) 0.14 (0.21) -0.15 (0.52) 0.21 (0.32)

  18. Social Approval and Social Desirability Bias in Females, by Education, WATCH Study, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1991-1995. ³ College (n=64) Social Approval Social Desirability Score Score BMI Baseline Total Energy (kcal/day) -2.9 (0.72) -24.3 (0.04) 19.7 (0.11) Total Fat (g/day) -0.34 (0.49) -1.28 (0.07) 1.42 (0.05) Total SFA (g/day) -0.10 (0.52) -0.53 (0.01) 0.41 (0.07) One-year ³ College (n=53) Total Energy (kcal/day) -5.1 (0.61) -9.5 (0.54) 35.5 (0.04) Total Fat (g/day) -0.23 (0.67) -0.21 (0.80) 1.98 (0.02) Total SFA (g/day) -0.06 (0.74) -0.05 (0.86) 0.75 (0.01)

  19. WATCH Study Conclusions: Education modifies the effect of the social desirability and social approval ¨ The effects differ by gender ¨ There appears to be a differential effect of the intervention on the bias according to gender and education ¨

  20. The Role of Social Desirability in Epidemiologic Confounding SD Score Psychologic Predispositions Physiologic Responses (e.g., Immune Function) Disease True Diet Reported Diet

  21. WATCH Nutritionist Intervention: Total Fat and Saturated Fat Never Referred < 3 Sessions ³ 3 Sessions -0.71 -0.26 -4.95 -2.13 -8.24 -2.73 0 ±0.14 -2 ±0.38 ±0.49 -4 ±0.50 (% total energy) Change in fat intake -6 ±1.36 -8 Total Fat -10 Saturated Fat ±1.39 (n=645) -12

  22. WATCH Nutritionist Intervention: Total Cholesterol and LDL Never Referred < 3 Sessions ³ 3 Sessions 0.01 0.15 ±0.03 -0.02 -0.15 -0.13 -0.43 -0.48 0 ±0.03 -0.15 Changes in serum cholesterol (mmol/L) ±0.11 ±0.12 -0.3 -0.45 TC ±0.13 -0.6 ±0.11 LDL-C -0.75 (n=555)

  23. WATCH Nutritionist Intervention: Actual Changes in Total Cholesterol vs. 7DDR - Predicted Values 0 -9.9 -8.4 -9.1 -1 -2 -3 -4 Change in Total Serum Cholesterol (mg/dL) -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 Keys Prediction Hegsted Prediction -10 Actual

  24. Table 4. Effects of social desirability on self-reported and measured change scores, WATCH Study, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1991-1995. * Variable P b Self-reported data Fat intake (% energy) -0.22 0.002 Body weight -0.02 0.59 (kg) Measured data Serum LDL-C (mmol/L) 0.004 0.48 Body weight 0.02 0.59 (kg) * P-value for the test of H0:=0

More Related