Towards refining World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research cancer prevention recommendations for red and processed meat intake: insights from Alberta's Tomorrow Project cohort.

Current cancer prevention recommendations advise limiting red meat intake to <500 g/week and avoiding consumption of processed meat, but do not differentiate the source of processed meat. We examined the associations of processed meat derived from red v. non-red meats with cancer risk in a prospective cohort of 26 218 adults who reported dietary intake using the Canadian Diet History Questionnaire. Incidence of cancer was obtained through data linkage with Alberta Cancer Registry with median follow-up of 13·3 (interquartile range (IQR) 5·1) years. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were adjusted for covariates and stratified by age and sex. The median consumption (g/week) of red meat, processed meat from red meat and processed meat from non-red meat was 267·9 (IQR 269·9), 53·6 (IQR 83·3) and 11·9 (IQR 31·8), respectively. High intakes (4th Quartile) of processed meat from red meat were associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 1·68 (95 % CI 1·09, 2·57) and colorectal cancers AHR: 1·90 (95 % CI 1·12, 3·22), respectively, in women. No statistically significant associations were observed for intakes of red meat or processed meat from non-red meat. Results suggest that the carcinogenic effect associated with processed meat intake may be limited to processed meat derived from red meats. The findings provide preliminary evidence towards refining cancer prevention recommendations for red and processed meat intake.

Administering a combination of online dietary assessment tools, the Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Dietary Assessment Tool, and Diet History Questionnaire II, in a cohort of adults in Alberta's Tomorrow Project.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that combining tools that gather short- and long-term dietary data may be the optimal approach for the assessment of diet-disease associations in epidemiologic studies. Online technology can reduce the associated burdens for researchers and participants, but feasibility must be demonstrated in real-world settings before wide-scale implementation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of combining web-based tools (the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool [ASA24-2016] and the past-year Diet History Questionnaire II [DHQ-II]) in a subset of participants in Alberta's Tomorrow Project, a prospective cohort. DESIGN: For this feasibility study, invitations were mailed to 550 randomly selected individuals enrolled in Alberta's Tomorrow Project. Consented participants (n = 331) were asked to complete a brief sociodemographic and health questionnaire, four ASA24-2016 recalls, the DHQ-II, and an evaluation survey. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: The study was conducted from March 2016 to December 2016 in Alberta, Canada. The majority of participants, mean age (SD) = 57.4 (9.8) years, were women (70.7%), urban residents (85.5%), and nonsmokers (95.7%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were number of ASA24-2016 recalls completed, response rate of DHQ-II completion, and time to complete each assessment. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: The Wilcoxon signed rank sum test was used to assess differences in completion time. RESULTS: One-third (n = 102) of consenting participants did not complete any ASA24-2016 recalls. The primary reason to withdraw from the feasibility study was a lack of time. Among consenting participants, 51.9% (n = 172), 41.1% (n = 136), and 36.5% (n = 121) completed at least two ASA24-2016 recalls, the DHQ-II, and at least two ASA24-2016 recalls plus the DHQ-II, respectively. Median (25th to 75th percentile) completion times for participants who completed all recalls were 39 minutes (25 to 53 minutes) for the first ASA24-2016 recall and 60 minutes (40 to 90 minutes) for the DHQ-II. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate combining multiple ASA24-2016 recalls and the DHQ-II is feasible in this subset of Alberta's Tomorrow Project participants. However, optimal response rates may be contingent on providing participant support. Completion may also be sensitive to timing and frequency of recall administration.

The Comparative Reliability and Feasibility of the Past-Year Canadian Diet History Questionnaire II: Comparison of the Paper and Web Versions.

Advances in technology-enabled dietary assessment include the advent of web-based food frequency questionnaires, which may reduce costs and researcher burden but may introduce new challenges related to internet connectivity and computer literacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intra- and inter-version reliability, feasibility and acceptability of the paper and web Canadian Diet History Questionnaire II (CDHQ-II) in a sub-sample of 648 adults (aged 39-81 years) recruited from Alberta's Tomorrow Project. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) paper, web, paper; or (2) web, paper, web over a six-week period. With few exceptions, no statistically significant differences in mean nutrient intake were found in the intra- and inter-version reliability analyses. The majority of participants indicated future willingness to complete the CDHQ-II online, and 59% indicated a preference for the web over the paper version. Findings indicate that, in this population of adults drawn from an existing cohort, the CDHQ-II may be administered in paper or web modalities (increasing flexibility for questionnaire delivery), and the nutrient estimates obtained with either version are comparable. We recommend that other studies explore the feasibility and reliability of different modes of administration of dietary assessment instruments prior to widespread implementation.