Validation of the English version of the 14-Item Mediterranean diet adherence screener of the PREDIMED study, in people at high cardiovascular risk in the UK

Autores: Papadaki, A.; Johnson, L.; Toumpakari, Z.; England, C.; Rai, M.; Toms, S.; Penfold, C.; Zazpe García, Itzíar; Martínez González, Miguel Ángel; Feder, G.
Título de la revista: NUTRIENTS
ISSN: 2072-6643
Volumen: 10
Número: 2
Páginas: E318
Fecha de publicación: 2018
Lugar: WOS
The aim of this study was to examine the validity of the English version of the PREvencion con DIetaMEDiterranea (PREDIMED) 14-item Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS), a brief questionnaire assessing adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet), which was used in the PREDIMED trial for assessment and immediate feedback. This instrument (MEDAS) was administered to 96 adults with a high cardiovascular risk (66% women, mean age 68.3 ± 6.0 years), recruited from general practices in Bristol, UK. Participants then completed a 3-day estimated food record, and the MEDAS was administered again one month later. A MedDiet score (range = 0-14) was calculated from the MEDAS' administrations and food record to assess concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. Predictive validity was assessed by examining the association of the MEDAS-derived score with cardiometabolic risk factors and dietary intakes derived from the food records. The MEDAS-derived MedDiet score was higher by 1.47 points compared to food records (5.47 vs.4.00, p < 0.001), correlated moderately with the record-derived score (r = 0.50, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.53, p < 0.001) and there was borderline fair agreement between the two methods (¿ = 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.31, p = 0.002; 95% limits of agreement -2.2, 5.1). Exact agreement within score categories and gross misclassificationwere 45.8% and 21.9%, respectively. The distribution of dietary intakes, reported on the food records by the MEDAS-derived total MedDiet score, was in the expected direction, but no association was observed with cardiometabolic risk factors. The two administrations of the MEDAS produced similar mean total MedDiet scores (5.5 vs. 5.4, p = 0.706), which were correlated (r and ICC = 0.69, p < 0.001) and agreed fairly (¿ = 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.52, p < 0.001; 95% limits of agreement -3.1, 3.2). The English version of the MEDAS has acceptable accuracy and reliability for assessing MedDiet adherence among individuals with a high cardiovascular risk, in the UK, and can be used to rank individuals according to MedDiet adherence in research and practice.