Corrigendum

Citation:
Jensen TME, Braaten T, Jacobsen BK, Barnung RB, Olsen A, Skeie G. Adherence to the Healthy Nordic Food Index in the Norwegian Women and Cancer (NOWAC) cohort. Food Nutr Res 2018; 62: 1339. doi: 10.29219/fnr.v62.1339

Published: September 2018

List of authors:

Torill M. Enget Jensen1*, Tonje Braaten1, Bjarne Koster Jacobsen1, Runa Borgund Barnung1, Anja Olsen2 and Guri Skeie1

1Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway; 2Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark

 

Citation: Food & Nutrition Research 2024, 68: 10708 - http://dx.doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v68.10708

Copyright: © 2024 Jensen TME et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.

*Torill M. Enget Jensen, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health 8 Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Pb 6070 Langnes, NO-9037 Tromsø, Norway. Email: torill.enget@uit.no

 

In the published article, the final portion of Table 4 was not published, specifically the last four lines of Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of absolute and energy-adjusted intake of foods/nutrients not included in the calculation of the Healthy Nordic Food Index in the low, medium, and high adherence categories in the Norwegian Women and Cancer cohort
Energy, foods and nutrients Absolute intake (unit/day) Energy-adjusted (unit/7MJ)
All women n = 81,516 Healthy Nordic Food Index category P (direction of association)* All women n = 81,516 Healthy Nordic Food Index category P (direction of association)*
0–1 2–3 4–6 0–1 2–3 4–6
Median P25–P75 Median P25–P75 Median P25–P75 Median P25–P75 Median P25–P75 Median P25–P75 Median P25–P75 Median P25–P75
Fibre (g) 21 17–26 16 13–18 21 18–24 27 24–31 <0.001 (+) 21 18–24 18 16–21 21 19–24 23 21–26 <0.001 (+)
Zinc (mg) 9 7–10 7 6–9 9 7–10 10 9–12 <0.001 (+) 9 8–10 9 8–10 9 8–10 8 8–9 <0.001 (–)
Selenium (µg/day) 58 46–71 45 37–55 57 47–69 70 59–84 <0.001 (+) 58 49–69 54 46–64 58 49–70 61 52–72 <0.001 (+)
Iron (mg) 9 7–11 7 6–9 9 7–10 11 9–12 <0.001 (+) 9 8–10 9 8–10 9 8–10 9 8–10 <0.001 (+)
Folate (µg/day) 178 145–218 140 115–169 175 147–208 218 186–258 <0.001 (+) 178 157–206 167 146–192 178 156–205 189 167–216 <0.001 (+)
Vitamin D (µg/day) 6 4–12 4 3–7 6 4–11 8 6–15 <0.001 (+) 6 4–11 5 4–8 6 4–11 7 5–13 <0.001 (+)
Sodium (mg) 2,322 1,912–2,783 1,950 1,609–2,310 2,305 1,927–2,713 2,692 2,282–3,147 <0.001 (+) 2,346 2,132–2,571 2,346 2,123–2,577 2,354 2,135–2,585 2,334 2,134–2,542 <0.001 (–)
Red-and processed meat (g) 91 63–124 89 61–121 91 63–124 94 64–126 <0.001 (+) 92 66–122 108 78–141 93 67–122 81 58–106 <0.001 (–)
Added sugar (g) 20 13–31 18 11–28 20 13–30 23 16–33 <0.001 (+) 21 14–29 22 14–32 21 14–30 20 14–27 <0.001 (–)
Fruit/vegetables (g) 305 203–444 183 115–258 296 213–403 456 344–593 <0.001 (+) 309 210–440 217 138–315 303 213–429 397 294–528 <0.001 (+)
Milk and milk products (g) 219 108–360 185 89–308 217 107–352 245 129–438 <0.001 (+) 218 115–374 224 110–389 220 115–373 213 118–360 <0.001 (–)
Chicken (g) 16 6–16 6 6–16 16 6–16 16 6–16 <0.001 (+) 13 6–20 13 6–22 13 6–20 12 5–19 <0.001 (–)
Potatoes (g) 126 50–126 63 50–126 126 50–126 126 50–126 <0.001 (+) 100 51–143 96 49–158 105 51–143 96 50–143 <0.001 (–)
*p-value generated from a nonparametric test for trend over ordered groups, (+) relates to a positive trend over adherence categories, and (–) relates to an inverse trend over adherence categories.

Additionally, there was an inaccuracy in the description of the scoring methodology used to calculate the Healthy Nordic Food Index. It was incorrectly stated that an intake below the median is scored as zero points, and an intake at or above the median is scored as one point. The scoring was conducted such that an intake at or below the median received a score of zero, and an intake above the median was awarded a score of 1. This has now been updated (page 4 in the publication) as follows: ‘To compute the index score for each participant, the intake of each food item included in the index was divided by the cohort median to assign each participant either a score of 1 if they were above the study median, or a score of 0 if equal to or below the study median’.

The authors sincerely regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

These discrepancies do not affect any of the numerical data or the results presented in the tables. The overall results and conclusions are upheld.