Literature review on methodologies and tools for national dietary surveys; results of ERA EU‐menu‐project
Meta data
Disclaimer: The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as authors. In accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, this task has been carried out exclusively by the authors in the context of a grant agreement between the European Food Safety Authority and the authors. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It cannot be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Abstract
The availability of detailed and high‐quality food consumption data is essential for EFSA's risk assessments. In 2014, EFSA published the EU‐menu guidance on the collection of harmonized and high‐quality food consumption data. The ERA‐EU Menu literature review aimed to evaluate the landscape of methods and tools available/used for national dietary surveys after 2006. Among completed national surveys there is a large variety in study characteristics, such as sampling designs, response rates, sample sizes, underreporting, and dietary assessment. The most commonly used dietary assessment methods are repeated 24‐hour dietary recalls and, among the younger children, food records. Among EU‐Menu surveys, the dietary assessment methods and number of days of data collection were more harmonised compared to the non‐EU‐Menu surveys. The umbrella review showed that the 2014 EU Menu guidance regarding the dietary assessment method is supported by the conclusions of evaluation studies on conventional dietary assessment methods. Moreover, the review showed that a range of new technology‐based tools were developed in the last decades. Most of these tools are self‐administered variations of the conventional dietary assessment methods. Technology‐based methods have advantages like reduced administration costs, flexibility in time and location, but also disadvantages such as the required e‐skills, non‐response bias, and investment costs. Although these methods are not yet extensively validated, they seem to have similar or slightly lower validity compared to conventional methods. Both online 24‐hour dietary recalls and smart‐phone food records have potential for use. However, additional research is needed to evaluate whether they are suitable for use in large‐scale settings in European countries. This study was part of the ERA EU‐Menu project, and will be followed by an evaluation of the quality of the surveys collected in the EU‐Menu framework and an advice for an update of the EU‐Menu guidance.