Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trends in Diet Quality Among Youth in the United States, 1999-2016

Open access
Liu, Junxiu, Rehm, Colin D., Onopa, Jennifer, Mozaffarian, Dariush·2020·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Prior studies of dietary trends among US youth have evaluated major macronutrients or only a few foods or have used older data. Objective: To characterize trends in diet quality among US youth. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional investigation using 24-hour dietary recalls from youth aged 2 to 19 years from 9 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles (1999-2016). Exposures: Calendar year and population sociodemographic characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the survey-weighted, energy-adjusted mean consumption of dietary components and proportion meeting targets of the American Heart Association (AHA) 2020 continuous diet score (range, 0-50; based on total fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish and shellfish, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sodium). Additional outcomes were the AHA secondary score (range, 0-80; adding nuts, seeds, and legumes; processed meat; and saturated fat) and Healthy Eating Index (HEI) 2015 score (range, 0-100). Poor diet was defined as less than 40% adherence (scores, <20 for primary and <32 for secondary AHA scores); intermediate as 40% to 79.9% adherence (scores, 20-39.9 and 32-63.9, respectively); and ideal, as at least 80% adherence (scores, ≥40 and ≥64, respectively). Higher diet scores indicate better diet quality; a minimal clinically important difference has not been quantified. Results: Of 31 420 youth aged 2 to 19 years included, the mean age was 10.6 years; 49.1% were female. From 1999 to 2016, the estimated AHA primary diet score significantly increased from 14.8 (95% CI, 14.1-15.4) to 18.8 (95% CI, 18.1-19.6) (27.0% improvement), the estimated AHA secondary diet score from 29.2 (95% CI, 28.1-30.4) to 33.0 (95% CI, 32.0-33.9) (13.0% improvement), and the estimated HEI-2015 score from 44.6 (95% CI, 43.5-45.8) to 49.6 (95% CI, 48.5-50.8) (11.2% improvement) (P < .001 for trend for each). Based on the AHA primary diet score, the estimated proportion of youth with poor diets significantly declined from 76.8% (95% CI, 72.9%-80.2%) to 56.1% (95% CI, 51.4%-60.7%) and with intermediate diets significantly increased from 23.2% (95% CI, 19.8%-26.9%) to 43.7% (95% CI, 39.1%-48.3%) (P < .001 for trend for each). The estimated proportion meeting ideal quality significantly increased but remained low, from 0.07% (95% CI, 0.01%-0.49%) to 0.25% (95% CI, 0.10%-0.62%) (P = .03 for trend). Persistent dietary variations were identified across multiple sociodemographic groups. The estimated proportion of youth with a poor diet in 2015-2016 was 39.8% (95% CI, 35.1%-44.5%) for ages 2 to 5 years (unweighted n = 666), 52.5% (95% CI, 46.4%-58.5%) for ages 6 to 11 years (unweighted n = 1040), and 66.6% (95% CI, 61.4%-71.4%) for ages 12 to 19 years (unweighted n = 1195), with persistent differences across levels of parental education, household income, and household food security status. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on serial NHANES surveys from 1999 to 2016, the estimated overall diet quality of US youth showed modest improvement, but more than half of youth still had poor-quality diets.

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.2020.0878

Cites

7 of 7 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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Liu, J., Rehm, C. D., Onopa, J., & Mozaffarian, D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2020-03-24
Volume
323
Issue
12
Pages
1161
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W3012820582
Cited by
289
References
7
FWCI
23.06
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.