Abstract
Objective There is limited description and documentation of the methods used for the categorization of dietary intake according to the NOVA classification, in large-scale cohort studies. This manuscript details the strategy employed for categorizing the food intake, assessed using food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), of participants in the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS) I and II, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS), and the Growing Up Today Studies (GUTS) I and II into the four NOVA groups to identify the ultra-processed portion of their diets.
Methods A four-stage approach was employed: (1) compilation of all food items from the FFQs used at different waves of data collection; (2) assignment of food items to a NOVA group by three researchers working independently; (3) checking for consensus in categorization and shortlisting food items for which there was disagreement; (4) discussions with experts and use of additional resources (research dieticians, cohort-specific documents, online grocery store scans) to guide the final categorization of the short-listed items.
Results At stage 1, 205 and 315 food items were compiled from the adult and GUTS FFQ food lists, respectively. Over 70% of food items from all cohorts were assigned to a NOVA group after stage 2 and the remainder were shortlisted for further discussion (stage 3). Two rounds of reviews at stage 4 helped with the categorization of 96.5% of items from the adult cohorts and 90.7% items from the youth cohort. The remaining products were assigned to a non-ultra-processed food group and ear-marked for sensitivity analyses. Of all items in the food lists, 36.1% in the adult cohorts and 43.5% in the GUTS cohorts were identified as ultra-processed.
Conclusion An iterative, conservative approach was used to categorize food items from the NHS, HPFS and GUTS FFQ food lists according to their grade of processing. The approach relied on discussions with experts and was informed by insights from the research dieticians, information provided by cohort-specific documents, and scans of online supermarkets. Future work is needed to validate this approach.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This manuscript contains no participant data and was considered IRB exempt.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, The University of Edinburgh, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos