Development of a sustainable diet index in US adults.

Sukyoung Jung, Heather A Young, Barbara H Braffett, Samuel J Simmens, Cynthia L Ogden
Author Information
  1. Sukyoung Jung: Department of Epidemiology, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. sukyoung_jung@gwu.edu. ORCID
  2. Heather A Young: Department of Epidemiology, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. ORCID
  3. Barbara H Braffett: Department of Epidemiology, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. ORCID
  4. Samuel J Simmens: Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. ORCID
  5. Cynthia L Ogden: Department of Epidemiology, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A transformation towards healthy diets through a sustainable food system is essential to enhance both human and planet health. Development of a valid, multidimensional, quantitative index of a sustainable diet would allow monitoring progress in the US population. We evaluated the content and construct validity of a sustainable diet index for US adults (SDI-US) based on data collected at the individual level.
METHODS: The SDI-US, adapted from the SDI validated in the French population, was developed using data on US adults aged 20 years and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2018 (n = 25,543). The index consisted of 4 sub-indices, made up of 12 indicators, corresponding to 4 dimensions of sustainable diets (nutritional quality, environmental impacts, affordability (economic), and ready-made product use behaviors (sociocultural)). A higher SDI-US score indicates greater alignment with sustainable diets (range: 4-20). Validation analyses were performed, including the assessment of the relevance of each indicator, correlations between individual indicators, sub-indices, and total SDI-US, differences in scores between sociodemographic subgroups, and associations with selected food groups in dietary guidelines, the alternative Mediterranean diet (aMed) score, and the EAT-Lancet diet score.
RESULTS: Total SDI-US mean was 13.1 (standard error 0.04). The correlation between SDI-US and sub-indices ranged from 0.39 for the environmental sub-index to 0.61 for the economic sub-index (Pearson Correlation coefficient). The correlation between a modified SDI-US after removing each sub-index and the SDI-US ranged from 0.83 to 0.93. aMed scores and EAT-Lancet diet scores were significantly higher among adults in the highest SDI-US quintile compared to the lowest quintile (aMed: 4.6 vs. 3.2; EAT-Lancet diet score: 9.9 vs. 8.7 p < .0001 for both).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, content and construct validity of the SDI-US were acceptable. The SDI-US reflected the key features of sustainable diets by integrating four sub-indices, comparable to the SDI-France. The SDI-US can be used to assess alignment with sustainable diets in the US. Continued monitoring of US adults' diets using the SDI-US could help improve dietary sustainability.

Keywords

References

PLoS One. 2013 Oct 09;8(10):e76632 [PMID: 24130784]
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018 Sep;118(9):1622-1633 [PMID: 30146073]
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Apr 02;16(7): [PMID: 30986991]
Prev Med. 2020 Aug;137:106124 [PMID: 32437702]
Lancet. 2019 Jul 20;394(10194):213-214 [PMID: 31235280]
Nature. 2018 Oct;562(7728):519-525 [PMID: 30305731]
Curr Dev Nutr. 2020 Feb 04;4(3):nzaa015 [PMID: 32154501]
Vital Health Stat 2. 2020 Apr;(184):1-35 [PMID: 33663649]
Adv Nutr. 2016 Jul 15;7(4):641-64 [PMID: 27422501]
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jul 20;103(14):1086-92 [PMID: 21653922]
Nutrients. 2021 May 17;13(5): [PMID: 34067774]
Br J Nutr. 2019 May;121(10):1166-1177 [PMID: 30973117]
J Nutr. 2022 Jul 6;152(7):1763-1772 [PMID: 35554563]
Science. 2018 Jun 1;360(6392):987-992 [PMID: 29853680]
Br J Nutr. 2009 Jul;101 Suppl 2:S73-85 [PMID: 19594967]
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Jan 1;107(1):80-93 [PMID: 29381789]
Am J Clin Nutr. 2020 Jul 1;112(1):138-149 [PMID: 31725157]
Adv Nutr. 2016 Jan 15;7(1):121-34 [PMID: 26773020]
Vital Health Stat 1. 2013 Aug;(56):1-37 [PMID: 25078429]
Public Health Nutr. 2003 May;6(3):313-21 [PMID: 12740081]
Am J Clin Nutr. 2023 Dec;118(6):1113-1122 [PMID: 37742929]
J Am Coll Nutr. 2009 Aug;28(4):421S-426S [PMID: 20368382]
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Aug;88(2):324-32 [PMID: 18689367]
J Nutr. 2009 Aug;139(8):1549-54 [PMID: 19549759]
J Nutr. 2015 Dec;145(12):2639-45 [PMID: 26468491]
Am J Clin Nutr. 2022 Mar 4;115(3):705-716 [PMID: 34791011]
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447-492 [PMID: 30660336]
J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 Apr 18;12(8):e026318 [PMID: 37066787]
Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4 Suppl):1220S-1228S; discussion 1229S-1231S [PMID: 9094926]
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 May;35(5):471-481 [PMID: 32140936]
Circulation. 2009 Mar 3;119(8):1093-100 [PMID: 19221219]
Environ Res Lett. 2018 Apr;13(4):044004 [PMID: 29853988]

Grants

  1. RS-2023-00274240/National Research Foundation of Korea

MeSH Term

Humans
Adult
Male
Female
United States
Nutrition Surveys
Middle Aged
Diet, Healthy
Young Adult
Aged
Diet
Nutritive Value
Nutrition Policy

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By