Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:13:54.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison between the National Food Survey and the Family Expenditure Survey food expenditure data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2007

Sophia E Paterakis  and
Michael Nelson
Sophia E Paterakis*
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 8WA, UK
Michael Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 8WA, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email sophia.paterakis@kcl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Household budget surveys (HBSs) have been used to assess nutritional information for epidemiological purposes. The agreement between this information and other comparable data needs to be examined. The aim of this project was to compare household food expenditure data between two British HBSs: the National Food Survey (NFS) and the Family Expenditure Survey (FES).

Design:

Household food expenditure data were compared between the NFS and the FES for the years from 1982 to 1993. Differences in expenditure were assessed by year, by household composition, by income group and by region; for trends across time for all households and for regional, household composition and income group variations.

Setting:

Great Britain.

Subjects:

Approximately 88 000 NFS households and 85 000 FES households surveyed between 1982 and 1993 were used in this analysis.

Results:

Marked differences between the food expenditure data provided by the two surveys were observed. Furthermore, differences in time trends were substantial, which can lead to different conclusions regarding changes in consumption patterns.

Conclusions:

There is no obvious reason for the differences in household food expenditure between the NFS and the FES. Methodological differences between the two surveys cannot provide a full explanation for these discrepancies. The NFS and FES are now merged into a single survey (the Expenditure and Food Survey). If HBSs are to be used for epidemiological purposes their validity needs to be established.

Keywords

Household budget surveysValidityFood expenditureNational Food SurveyFamily Expenditure SurveyExpenditure and Food SurveyGreat Britain
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 6 , Issue 6 , September 2003 , pp. 571 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2003

References

1Trichopoulou, A. Monitoring food intake in Europe: a food data based on household budget surveys. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1992; 46(5): S3–8.Google ScholarPubMed
2Chesher, A. Diet revealed? Semiparametric estimation of nutrient intake–age relationships (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1997; 160(Pt. 3): 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Fifty years of the National Food Survey 1940–1990. In: Slater, JM, ed. Proceedings of a symposium held in December 1990, London/Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Chairman: RE Mordue. London: HM Stationery Office, 1991.Google Scholar
4Office of National Statistics. Family Spending. A Report on the 1992 Family Expenditure Survey. London: HM Stationery Office, 1993.Google Scholar
5Central Statistical Office. Retail Price Index. London: HM Stationery Office, 1983–1994.Google Scholar
6Matthews, JNS, Altman, DG, Campbell, MJ, Royston, P. Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. British Medical Journal 1990; 300: 230–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Bland, M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Medical Publications, 1995.Google Scholar
8Department of Health and Social Security. Diet and Coronary Heart Disease. Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 7. London: HM Stationery Office, 1974.Google Scholar
9Department of Health and Social Security. Diet and Cardiovascular Disease. Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 28. London: HM Stationery Office, 1984.Google Scholar
10Department of Health. Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease. Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 46. London: HM Stationery Office, 1994.Google Scholar
11Trichopoulou, A, Kanellou, A, Lagiou, P, Zintzaras, E and the DAFNE I group. Integration of nutritional data based on household budget surveys in European countries. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 1996; 55: 699–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Trichopoulou, A, Lagiou, P, eds. DAFNE I – Methodology for the Exploitation of HBS Food Data and Results on Food Availability in 5 European Countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997.Google Scholar
13Trichopoulou, A, Lagiou, P, eds. DAFNE II – Methodology for the Exploitation of HBS Food Data and Results on Food Availability in 6 European Countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998.Google Scholar
14Naska, A, Paterakis, S, Eeckman, H, Remaut, AM, Trygg, K. Methodology for rendering household budget and individual nutrition surveys comparable, at the level of the dietary information collected. Public Health Nutrition 2001; 4(5B): 1153–8.Google ScholarPubMed
15Naska, A, Vasdekis, VGS, Trichopoulou, A. A preliminary assessment of the use of household budget survey data for the prediction of individual food consumption. Public Health Nutrition 2001; 4(5B): 1159–65.Google ScholarPubMed
16Becker, W. Comparability of household and individual food consumption data – evidence from Sweden. Public Health Nutrition 2001; 4(5B): 1177–82.Google ScholarPubMed