Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 677

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dietary Intake Among US Adults, 1999-2012

Open access
Rehm, Colin D., Peñalvo, José L., Afshin, Ashkan, Mozaffarian, Dariush·2016·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2016.7491
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Most studies of US dietary trends have evaluated major macronutrients or only a few dietary factors. Understanding trends in summary measures of diet quality for multiple individual foods and nutrients, and the corresponding disparities among population subgroups, is crucial to identify challenges and opportunities to improve dietary intake for all US adults. OBJECTIVE: To characterize trends in overall diet quality and multiple dietary components related to major diseases among US adults, including by age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and income. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Repeated cross-sectional investigation using 24-hour dietary recalls in nationally representative samples including 33,932 noninstitutionalized US adults aged 20 years or older from 7 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles (1999-2012). The sample size per cycle ranged from 4237 to 5762. EXPOSURES: Calendar year and population sociodemographic subgroups. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Survey-weighted, energy-adjusted mean consumption and proportion meeting targets of the American Heart Association (AHA) 2020 continuous diet scores, AHA score components (primary: total fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish and shellfish, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sodium; secondary: nuts, seeds, and legumes, processed meat, and saturated fat), and other individual food groups and nutrients. RESULTS: Several overall dietary improvements were identified (P < .01 for trend for each). The AHA primary diet score (maximum of 50 points) improved from 19.0 to 21.2 (an improvement of 11.6%). The AHA secondary diet score (maximum of 80 points) improved from 35.1 to 38.5 (an improvement of 9.7%). Changes were attributable to increased consumption between 1999-2000 and 2011-2012 of whole grains (0.43 servings/d; 95% CI, 0.34-0.53 servings/d) and nuts or seeds (0.25 servings/d; 95% CI, 0.18-0.34 servings/d) (fish and shellfish intake also increased slightly) and to decreased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (0.49 servings/d; 95% CI, 0.28-0.70 servings/d). No significant trend was observed for other score components, including total fruits and vegetables, processed meat, saturated fat, or sodium. The estimated percentage of US adults with poor diets (defined as <40% adherence to the primary AHA diet score components) declined from 55.9% to 45.6%, whereas the percentage with intermediate diets (defined as 40% to 79.9% adherence to the primary AHA diet score components) increased from 43.5% to 52.9%. Other dietary trends included increased consumption of whole fruit (0.15 servings/d; 95% CI, 0.05-0.26 servings/d) and decreased consumption of 100% fruit juice (0.11 servings/d; 95% CI, 0.04-0.18 servings/d). Disparities in diet quality were observed by race/ethnicity, education, and income level; for example, the estimated percentage of non-Hispanic white adults with a poor diet significantly declined (53.9% to 42.8%), whereas similar improvements were not observed for non-Hispanic black or Mexican American adults. There was little evidence of reductions in these disparities and some evidence of worsening by income level. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In nationally representative US surveys conducted between 1999 and 2012, several improvements in self-reported dietary habits were identified, with additional findings suggesting persistent or worsening disparities based on race/ethnicity, education level, and income level. These findings may inform discussions on emerging successes, areas for greater attention, and corresponding opportunities to improve the diets of individuals living in the United States.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.7491

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 17 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rehm, C. D., Peñalvo, J. L., Afshin, A., & Mozaffarian, D.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2016-06-21
Volume
315
Issue
23
Pages
2542
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2016.7491
OpenAlex
W2469921445
Cited by
677
References
17
FWCI
58.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.