Estimating dietary costs of low-income women in California: A comparison of 2 approaches

14Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Currently, no simplified approach to estimating food costs exists for a large, nationally representative sample. Objective: The objective was to compare 2 approaches for estimating individual daily diet costs in a population of low-income women in California. Design: Cost estimates based on time-intensive method 1 (three 24- h recalls and associated food prices on receipts) were compared with estimates made by using less intensive method 2 [a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and store prices]. Low-income participants (n = 121) of USDA nutrition programs were recruited. Mean daily diet costs, both unadjusted and adjusted for energy, were compared by using Pearson correlation coefficients and the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement between methods. Results: Energy and nutrient intakes derived by the 2 methods were comparable; where differences occurred, the FFQ (method 2) provided higher nutrient values than did the 24-h recall (method 1). The crude daily diet cost was $6.32 by the 24-h recall method and $5.93 by the FFQ method (P = 0.221). The energy-adjusted diet cost was $6.65 by the 24-h recall method and $5.98 by the FFQ method (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although the agreement between methods was weaker than expected, both approaches may be useful. Additional research is needed to further refine a large national survey approach (method 2) to estimate daily dietary costs with the use of this minimal time-intensive method for the participant and moderate time-intensive method for the researcher. Copyright © 2013 American Society for Nutrition.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Aaron, G. J., Keim, N. L., Drewnowski, A., & Townsend, M. S. (2013). Estimating dietary costs of low-income women in California: A comparison of 2 approaches. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 97(4), 835–841. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.044453

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free