ORIGINAL ARTICLE

National nutrition surveys in Europe: a review on the current status in the 53 countries of the WHO European region

Holly L. Rippin^1*, Jayne Hutchinson¹, Charlotte E. L. Evans¹, Jo Jewell², Joao J. Breda² and Janet E. Cade¹

¹Nutritional Epidemiology Group (NEG), School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; ²Division of Noncommunicable Diseases and Promoting Health through the Life-Course, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, UN City, Marmorvej 51, 21000 Copenhagen, Denmark

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the coverage of national nutrition surveys in the 53 countries monitored by the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe and identify gaps in provision, (2) to describe relevant survey attributes and (3) to check whether energy and nutrients are reported with a view to providing information for evidence-based nutrition policy planning.

Design: Dietary survey information was gathered using three methods: (1) direct email to survey authors and other relevant contacts, (2) systematic review of literature databases and (3) general web-based searches. Survey characteristics relating to time frame, sampling and dietary methodology and nutrients reported were tabled from all relevant surveys found since 1990.

Setting: Fifty-three countries of the WHO Regional Office for Europe, which have need for an overview of dietary surveys across the life course.

Subjects: European individuals (adults and children) in national diet surveys.

Results: A total of 109 nationally representative dietary surveys undertaken post-1990 were found across 34 countries. Of these, 78 surveys from 33 countries were found post-2000, and of these, 48 surveys from 27 countries included children and 60 surveys from 30 countries included adults. No nationally representative surveys were found for 19 of 53 countries, mainly from Central and Eastern Europe. Multiple 24hr recall and food diaries were the most common dietary assessment methods. Only 22 countries reported energy and nutrient intakes from post-2000 surveys; macronutrients were more widely reported than micronutrients.

Conclusions: Less than two-thirds of WHO Europe countries have nationally representative diet surveys, mainly collected post-2000. The main availability gaps lie in Central and Eastern European countries, where nutrition policies may therefore lack an appropriate evidence base. Dietary methodological differences may limit the scope for inter-country comparisons.

Keywords: national diet surveys; WHO European region; dietary assessment methodologies; scoping review – gaps; multi-criteria analysis; nutritional epidemiology

Graphical Abstract: National diet surveys identified

The World Health Organization (WHO) European Food and Nutrition Action Plan aims to ‘significantly reduce the burden of preventable diet-related noncommunicable diseases, obesity and all other forms of malnutrition still prevalent in the WHO European Region’ and improve diet and nutrition in the European population (1). An unhealthy diet is one of the four major behavioural risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in all WHO regions (2), with the European region proportionately suffering the greatest NCD burden. Other risk factors include alcohol, tobacco misuse and physical inactivity (2). In Europe, the four most common NCDs account for 77% of disease and almost 86% premature mortality (1).

NCDs and related conditions, including overweight and obesity, have significant and growing economic and social costs (1), which traditional clinical approaches are increasingly unable to address (3). Mozaffarian et al. (3) call for a shift in emphasis from such pharmacological treatments to primary prevention through addressing lifestyle risk factors such as dietary patterns in order to reduce cardiovascular risk and NCD-associated problems.

Dietary surveys thus have an important role in assessing dietary patterns in the whole population. Nutrition and health surveys formed the main source of information for dietary risk factors and physical inactivity in a systematic analysis of disease risk in 21 regions worldwide across two decades (4). Such surveys can provide a means of monitoring trends, identifying areas of concern and inequality and evaluating policy impact, thereby ultimately contributing to the promotion of best practice across the region (1). The WHO European Food and Nutrition Action Plan (1) explicitly encourages member states to ‘strengthen and expand nationally representative diet and nutrition surveys’.

Many western European countries currently have established dietary surveys that assess food and nutrient intake. A global review of country-specific surveys from 1990 to 2010 only reported dietary fat and oil intake (5). A comprehensive, updated review of total nutrient and food intakes across different populations and subgroups in Europe is needed, the results of which could identify where in Europe there is a need to improve diets and whether inequalities exist. This paper makes the first step in this regard, establishing which countries have nationally representative dietary surveys and highlighting gaps in nutrition survey provision across Europe.

This review aims to identify which of the 53 countries in the WHO European region have conducted nationally representative dietary surveys of whole diets at an individual level and those that have not. It identifies key characteristics, centred on time frame, sampling and dietary methodology, of known surveys undertaken since 1990 for adults and children and aims to lay the foundations in establishing a clear picture of the current situation. Following this, future papers will examine energy and nutrient intakes in different population groups across Europe to better assess where both gaps in knowledge and dietary inadequacies lie. Information from dietary surveys can be used as a means for governments and health bodies to monitor and reduce the diet-related risk of NCDs and related conditions across Europe, thereby contributing to the goals set out in the WHO action plan.

Methods

We used three key approaches to identifying national diet surveys: (1) contacting authors of surveys, (2) systematic literature review and (3) general web-based searches.

Identifying authors of national diet surveys

We identified authors of national surveys within the WHO Europe remit using listed contact names and other information from two main reports of national dietary surveys (5, 6). If no response was obtained from those authors, Internet searches of nutrition organisations by country and the survey titles listed in the review of 1990–2010 surveys (5) and the European Food Consumption Survey (6) were carried out to find other potentially useful contact details. For countries where this approach did not yield usable contact details, Internet searches using various search terms were performed on organisations specialising in nutrition, including known government and public health agencies. WHO also provided contact details for some of those countries for which they had relevant associates. Contacts identified were asked to complete a questionnaire (Appendix 1) to provide information on nationally representative dietary surveys conducted at an individual level since 1990, including links or references to relevant reports.

Systematic database search

For countries where no contact could be identified, systematic searches were undertaken across Web of Science, Medline and Scopus for nationally representative dietary surveys that collected data at an individual level from 1990 to June 2016. The following query terms were run without language restrictions: (survey* OR research* [TS]) AND (nutrition* OR diet* OR food* [TS]) AND (list of countries).

The title of each paper generated by the database searches was screened for relevance according to the criteria in Table 1; those that are not relevant were excluded. The remaining papers were screened by title and abstract, and full article where available, and their appropriateness for inclusion was checked by a second reviewer. Further surveys, related papers and nutrition expert contact names were gathered by general Internet searching to capture any recently released information, targeting known government and public health agencies using various search term combinations in order to maximise returns. Although there were no language restrictions in the initial search, the WHO Regional Office for Europe, Division of Noncommunicable Diseases and Promoting Health through the Life-Course, conducted an additional database search of papers in the Russian language as an extra check to maximise returns in the 12 Central and Eastern European countries where Russian is an official or widely spoken language (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan). However, no papers or reports that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were found. The databases searched were PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar, using the search terms mentioned above, translated into Russian. Further searches with these terms were undertaken in three specific Russian language databases: Kazakh Academy of Nutrition; 1st Moscow Medical Academy named after Sechenov and Electronic Scientific Library in Russian.

Database extraction

Where long-running surveys had multiple collection waves, for example, the French INCA 1 and INCA 2 or UK NDNS 2000–1 and NDNS 2008–12, each collection wave was counted as a separate survey (see Table 2). Survey characteristics were extracted and tabled from the relevant publications, which were accessed in various forms, including summary reports, academic articles and completed questionnaires (see Table 2). The survey characteristics included the following: country name, survey name, year of survey (data collection), information source, sample size and age range, dietary methodology, nutrient composition database and reference. The availability of energy and selected nutrients from the latest surveys collected after 2000 are listed in Appendices 1 and 2.

Results

Data extracted

A total of 109 nationally representative surveys that obtained data on whole diets (rather than focusing only on certain foods) at an individual level since 1990 were found for 34 out of the 53 countries in the WHO office region. Table 2 shows the characteristics of these surveys and that the majority of countries with national dietary surveys (NDS) had conducted multiple surveys. Of the 34 countries with NDS, almost half (n = 16) had long-running surveys with waves conducted over various years; 10 of these also had stand-alone surveys (Table 2). Countries for which relevant survey characteristics were gathered are Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Of the 109 nationally representative surveys found, 78 were conducted since 2000, covering 33 countries – those listed previously, excluding Slovakia. Reports of energy and nutrient intakes were not found for each of these surveys. Only 28 surveys from 22 countries were found with post-2000 survey reports of energy and nutrient intakes.

The majority of the surveys were found via Internet searches or emailing contacts gathered by the methods discussed. Current contact details were found for the following 30 countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. WHO provided details for Andorra, Kazakhstan and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Contact details were not available for the following 20 countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. For countries where no contact could be identified, the original systematic literature search returned 6,654 papers across the three databases, but only eight of these met the inclusion criteria. Of the 78 surveys undertaken since 2000, 30 papers or reports relating to them were acquired through email contacts, 4 from information extracted by WHO from the WHO Global Nutrition Policy Review 2017, 35 via Internet searching, 2 via the systematic literature search, 18 via the Micha review (5) and 1 from the EFCOSUM survey (6); 11 reports had multiple sources. See Fig. 1 for the full dietary survey screening and Table 2 for the characteristics of all dietary surveys conducted since 1990.

Fig. 1.  Screening and selection of national dietary surveys.

No nationally representative surveys were found by any method that collected dietary intake of whole diets at individual level for 19 European countries (see Table 3 and Fig. 2). Although one survey of children was found for Croatia, it was not nationally representative (7). In addition, no nationally representative surveys have been found for Slovakia that have been conducted since 2000, and none for Bulgaria and Czech Republic since 2005. In Western Europe, no surveys have been found for Italy or Israel conducted since 2006, or for Andorra since 2005.

Fig. 2.  Map of national dietary survey provision by country. Light grey – Post-2000 survey plus nutrient intakes (28 surveys in 22 countries). Medium grey – Post-2000 survey (78 surveys in 33 countries). Medium-dark grey – Pre-2000 survey (3 surveys in 1 country). Dark grey – No survey (19 countries). White – countries not in the WHO Europe remit.

Of the 109 nationally representative surveys, 45 obtained dietary information on both adults and children, a further 41 surveys collected dietary information on adults aged 18+ only and 23 on children aged <18 only. For the 86 surveys that included adults, 60 across 30 countries were conducted since 2000. Of the 68 surveys that included children, 48 were conducted since 2000 and spanned 27 countries. Nationally representative surveys for children were missing in nine countries: Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland. Further gaps were found for Andorran children aged <12 years; Bulgarian children aged above 5 years; Icelandic, Kazakh and Slovenian children aged <15 years; Macedonian children aged <16 years; Polish children post-2000 and Spanish micronutrient intake in children of all ages.

Non-nationally representative dietary surveys were found for eight countries (Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Russia and Switzerland), but because of our exclusion criteria they were not included in the list of nationally representative surveys in Table 2. Additionally, 16 studies conducted in Central and Eastern European countries were returned from the systematic literature search in English and 49 from the WHO Russian language database search and were not included in any tables; common reasons for rejection were no or partial dietary intake collected, data not collected at individual level, duplicate and sample size too small (<200). Eight countries completed the WHO STEPwise approach to noncommunicable disease risk factor surveillance (STEPS) adult survey (8–15). However, although these were nationally representative population-based surveys with large sample sizes, they were not included in this review because they only covered specific food groups, not whole diets, and as such did not meet our inclusion criteria.

Dietary methodologies

The most common dietary assessment methodologies used across the 109 nationally representative surveys were the 24hr recall and food diary. Of these surveys, 45 used 24hr recall, 35 of which were surveys conducted since 2000 (Table 2). Of the 45 surveys using 24hr recall, the range of daily recalls was 1–4; 29 surveys used multiple 24hr recalls, 26 of which were conducted post-2000. Table 2 illustrates that where countries used both 24hr recall and food diaries, this was a combination of methodological changes in waves of long-running surveys, different surveys using different methodologies or both methods being employed within the same survey for different population groups, for example, adults and children. A 2×24hr recall is the method recommended by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for adults’ NDS (16). Countries with surveys conducted post-2000 using multiple 24hr recall were Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the United Kingdom. Spain calculated usual nutrient intake from 24hr recall and a 3-day dietary diary.

Food diaries were used as a primary method by 47 surveys, 33 of which were conducted post-2000. The range of diary days per survey was 1–7. Thirty-eight surveys used multiple day diaries as the primary method, and 26 of these were conducted post-2000 from the following countries: Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The majority of these were performed over consecutive days. Weighed diaries were used as the sole method by some surveys in France, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom, but also as a primary method by one survey in Germany.

Food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) were used by 12 surveys, 5 of which were conducted post-2000 (Estonia, Ireland, Norway, Romania and Slovenia). FFQs were used by Ireland, Norway and Slovenia in pre-2000 surveys and as a supplementary, rather than primary, dietary assessment tool by other countries (Andorra, Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey).

Of the 28 surveys that reported energy and nutrient intakes (see Table 2 for older NDS approaches where available), 10 used interviews – these were primarily (n = 8) face-to-face rather than telephone-based, and 3 of these were electronic, for example, computer or tablet-based. Respondents self-completed in 11 surveys, which were all food diaries. Electronic resources were utilised in five surveys, just two of which were web-based. Five surveys used multiple approaches – these were mainly a combination of face-to-face and telephonic interviews with the exception of Spain, which used both interview forms plus a tablet and camera-photos.

Energy and nutrient coverage

Of the 22 countries that had post-2000 nationally representative survey reports of energy and nutrient intakes, 20 countries reported data for adults and 16 countries for children. This was provided by 28 of the latest post-2000 surveys that reported energy and nutrient data for these countries; 13 surveys included both adults and children, 8 surveyed adults only and 7 sampled children only (3 being separate surveys of children in Ireland). Table 2 identifies these 28 surveys and illustrates their differing methodological approaches.

All 28 surveys included energy and also carbohydrate, fibre, fat and protein intakes. Most surveys (n = 25) included intake data on saturated fat (Germany and the Irish child and teen surveys did not): MUFAs (n = 25) (Germany, Irish child and teen surveys did not) and PUFAs (n = 24) (Germany, Irish child and teen surveys, and the Dutch DNFCS young children did not). See Appendix 2 and Fig. 3 for tabular and graphical summaries of the macronutrients included by each survey. The majority of surveys (n = 21) included intake levels of sugars in some form, either as total sugars or as added sugars or sucrose. However, Cyprus, Germany, the Irish child and teen surveys, Latvia, the Spanish ENIDE survey and Turkey included neither. Given current concerns about sugar consumption, this is an important gap. Few surveys (n = 6) included data on starch intakes and less than half (n = 9) included trans-fatty acid (TFA) intakes (see Appendix 2).

Fig. 3.  Number of macronutrients reported by each national dietary survey by country*: *Where 12 is the maximum potential number of selected macronutrients of interest being reported in NDS reports: energy, protein, carbohydrate, sugars, sucrose, starches, fibre, total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and trans-fatty acids (TFA).

All surveys with the exception of the Spanish ANIBES study included some micronutrients of interest (see Appendix 3 and Fig. 4). However, none of the micronutrients investigated was reported by every survey. Vitamin A, riboflavin, thiamine, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, vitamin C, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium and iron were reported by 26 or more surveys. Copper (13), iodine (13), selenium (11) and fluoride (1 – not tabled) were reported by fewer than half the surveys.

Fig. 4.  Number of micronutrients reported by each national dietary survey by country*: *Where 19 is the maximum potential number of selected micronutrients of interest being reported in NDS reports: folate (B9), niacin (B3), vitamin A, riboflavin (B2), thiamine (B1), vitamin B12 (biotin), vitamin B6 (pyridoxine), vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, iron, copper, iodine, selenium and zinc.

Discussion

Data collection

This report details the initial findings of a review into dietary surveys across the 53 countries within the WHO Europe remit (17). Nationally representative surveys which collected data on whole diets at individual level since 1990 were found for only 64% of countries, the main gaps clearly lying in 17 countries in the Central and Eastern European region of the WHO Europe remit. Although eight countries without NDS had recently completed a comprehensive WHO STEPS survey, including questions on fruit and vegetable intake, salt consumption and use of fats and oils in cooking and eating, the survey does not address whole diets and only included adults; therefore, this represents a knowledge gap. However, non-nationally representative surveys were found in two countries that had no other NDS, which demonstrates that although some countries have no nationally representative surveys, other initiatives are in place and the expertise and fieldwork experience needed to conduct NDS may be present. All Western European countries had published survey information after 2000. Of countries with NDS, 16 conducted long-running surveys with multiple collection waves, which could generate important information for trends analysis. Fewer surveys were available that measured diet in children than adults; again gaps were primarily in Central and Eastern European countries. This implies that nutrition policies in this region are based on limited data, which is of concern, as overweight and obesity have tripled in some of these countries since 1980 and NCD prevalence rates are reaching those of Western Europe (1).

Emailing nutrition experts and general Internet searches were the most successful data gathering methods. A major source for contacts and survey information was a global survey review from 1990 to 2010 (5). Few academic papers met the pre-set inclusion criteria in the systematic database search performed for countries – particularly Central and Eastern countries – with no surveys or contacts mentioned in previous reviews, which also minimises the risk of bias. A possible explanation is that survey results and characteristics may be published as government or other official reports rather than academic papers. However, we also undertook wider web-based searches, targeting known government and public health agencies using various search terms to account for this. Another reason is that dietary assessment in large-scale studies like national diet surveys is costly, due to the labour-intensive nature of study preparation and data collection, and therefore may not be undertaken by some countries (18). This could explain the disproportionate concentration of gaps in survey provision in Central and Eastern European countries, which tend to have lower national incomes (19). This highlights a need to clarify major barriers and work with countries to establish mechanisms to overcome these and subsequently to devise and implement NDS.

Dietary methodologies of post-2000 surveys

The most common methods of collecting dietary intake used in the 78 post-2000 surveys were the 24hr recall and food diary, the majority of which were collected over multiple days. Although 24hr recalls are known for under-reporting (20), their increased use could reflect their advantage in being less onerous for respondents and potentially providing more consistent results across all age and sex groups compared with other methods (21). Retrospective dietary recalls can provide detailed information on eating patterns and exert less influence on food choice than food diaries (22), thereby generating a more accurate and realistic report on population nutrient intake. However, such short-term dietary assessment methods are associated with within-person errors and wider variation of intakes within the population, particularly when intakes of only 1 or 2 days are collected, the latter as recommended by EFSA (16). Although FFQs provide long-term assessment, they nevertheless can present inflated energy and nutrient intakes (21), which could explain why few post-2000 surveys used FFQs as the primary dietary assessment method.

Prospective weighed and non-weighed food diaries allow very detailed information to be gathered on multiple days (22) and are sometimes used to validate other methods using a small sub-sample, but have a high respondent burden and like the 24hr recall, are susceptible to under-reporting (23). Food dairies with weighed intake are particularly burdensome and prone to response bias and respondent fatigue (24) – most likely the reason why fewer studies used it as a primary assessment method and the United Kingdom moved from weighed intake to estimated intake.

Many studies used multiple tools to collect food intake. Of the 22 countries for which energy and nutrient intakes were reported, all surveys that collected dietary intake using more than one tool generated energy and nutrient intake data from a primary method and used the other method(s) as a means of validation and calibration. The exception was Spain, which was the only country that used a truly mixed methods approach. Food diaries and 24hr recalls do not provide insight into usual intakes, whereas FFQs are less accurate in estimating individuals’ absolute intakes; combining methods could help rectify these shortcomings (24). Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands estimated ‘usual’ intakes using the Statistical Program to Assess Dietary Exposure (SPADE), although the Dutch intakes presented by age group in this report reflect the average of actual intakes reported by individuals. Of the other countries employing FFQ as a supplementary method, Greece and Iceland also explicitly stated that this was used to estimate usual intake. This approach is designed to overcome within-person errors and wider intake variations when only 2 days of intake have been collected, although methodological limitations cannot be fully negated.

Of the 23 surveys that sampled children only, over half (n = 15) used some form of food diary. This could be because children are expected to remember less retrospectively, so prospective methods of capturing intake, although subject to under-reporting and the limitations mentioned above, are deemed preferable and more accurate. This also fits with EFSA guidance on the collection of national food consumption data, which recommends countries ‘…use the dietary record method for infants and children and the 24-hour recall method for adults’ (16). EFSA further recommend data be collected on two non-consecutive days and that they be supplemented with a food propensity questionnaire (16). It remains to be seen whether more countries will move towards non-consecutive diaries in future surveys; at present, the majority of multiple food diaries are conducted on consecutive days. More detailed methodological recommendations for NDS of children are available via the Pilot study for the Assessment of Nutrient intake and food Consumption Among Kids in Europe (PANCAKE) project (25).

Of the 28 surveys that reported energy and nutrient intakes, Austria, Estonia, Iceland and Norway moved to 2×24hr recall in the latest NDS, perhaps to comply with the latest EFSA guidance (16). The United Kingdom switched from a 7-day weighed to a 4-day estimated food diary, which is more likely a move to reduce respondent burden. Although methodological changes make comparisons problematic across survey waves, the move towards a common approach will ease comparisons between countries in the long term and should be actively encouraged in line with EFSA recommendations. Although this could be logistically and financially challenging, it would assist in making inter-country comparisons and identifying vulnerable groups, thereby enabling the effective targeting of policy resources.

Technology in national dietary surveys

Care is needed in any dietary assessment method to minimise measurement error. Many dietary assessment methods require highly skilled interviewers, which increases survey costs and presents a potential barrier to conducting NDS (24). Technology like computer-administered interviews and image-capture could help overcome this obstacle and also promote standardised practices. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Soft software package developed by the EPIC Study provided uniform templates for various aspects of NDS including conducting 24hr recall, which has since been modified by the European Food Consumption Validation (EFCOVAL) Study and renamed ‘Globodiet’. It aimed for Europe-wide use, but is limited by the need for professionals to be trained in its use (26).

At present, none of the surveys identified used mobile technologies to collect dietary information; although Belgian, German and Portuguese surveys employed electronic interviews, the Spanish ANIBES used tablets and the Norwegian Ungkost3 and Swedish Riksmaten used a web-based food diary. This current lack of use may be due to the lack of validation or differential usability across population groups. However, web-based dietary assessments with self-administered record or recall methodologies have the potential to reduce data entry expense and allow data collection for large numbers on multiple days over different time periods (27). They could therefore be more cost-effective and encourage countries for which cost has been a significant barrier to undertake surveys. For example, myfood24 is an online 24-hour dietary assessment tool that can be used for either of the EFSA-approved (16) 24hr recall or a food diary methods (27). It employs country-specific food databases and is currently in operation in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Technologies like this could reduce the onus on researchers by automatically coding food records (27). These benefits could encourage countries that historically lack national diet survey provision to undertake surveys and enable countries that already undertake surveys to implement these at more regular intervals. This would serve to increase the amount of dietary and nutrient intake data available in the WHO Europe remit, directly contributing to the WHO objective of strengthening and expanding nationally representative diet and nutrition surveys WHO (1).

Energy and nutrient intakes

Energy and nutrient intake provision was documented from the latest survey collected after 2000 for each country for which we could locate intake data. For some countries, more recent surveys had been conducted (see Table 2), but intake data were not yet available in all cases. An additional limitation on data availability was the range of nutrients each survey covered. Of the countries that specified nutrient intakes, Germany and Belgium were the most likely to have gaps in reported intakes of macro- and micronutrients, respectively, and the Spanish ANIBES survey (28–30) only reported macronutrient data (see Appendix 3). This suggests that the reporting of nutrient intakes is inconsistent, making it harder to assess nutrient coverage and make inter-country comparisons.

Inconsistent age groupings across countries also make inter-country comparisons potentially problematic. In Andorra, the youngest age group spanned adults and children, meaning that although children were sampled, intake levels would not be valid in any comparisons. Future investigation could be undertaken using raw data and consistent age groups to obtain more reliable conclusions.

Differences in dietary methodologies may be a limiting factor when making inter-country comparisons. The relatively low levels seen in Turkish adult and child energy intakes compared to other countries could potentially be explained by methodological differences. The Turkish survey used a single 24hr recall, whereas the Belgian, Danish, German, Hungarian, Dutch, Norwegian and Spanish surveys, whilst using different methodologies (see Table 2), all collected data on multiple days. Collection on a single day is more likely to result in error due to less control over day-to-day variation (31).

Lack of alignment and completeness of national food composition databases and classification systems is a further limitation. For example, some food composition databases may not be updated to account for reformulated products, which could introduce differences and potential error in the energy and nutrient content of foods and therefore population intakes as reported in NDS. Common approaches to food composition databases are set out in more detail in the EFCOVAL study (144). Energy and nutrient intake values will be reported and discussed in more detail in future publications (145).

Strengths and limitations

The strength of the current review is that it presents a unique, current overview of dietary survey characteristics in all WHO Europe countries since 1990. The existence of newer studies such as Bel-Serrat et al. (146) illustrates the fluidity of the situation and the need for updated, comprehensive reviews. This review includes surveys covering both adults and children; therefore, it provides a full picture of the current state of dietary survey provision across the life course. It also discusses methodologies, enabling insights into common methods and paving the way for future exploration of best practice and policy recommendations.

However, the surveys employed different methodologies, both between surveys and within long-running surveys with multiple collection waves, potentially making the task of comparing countries problematic. Despite this, we feel that there is still a need to use the available information to make inter-country comparisons where possible. Another limitation of the review was that we were unable to establish contact with nutrition experts or government officials who may be working in nutrition in some of the 19 countries where no surveys were found, which were mainly Central and Eastern European countries. Therefore, we cannot ascertain that these countries do not have any relevant dietary surveys. We also cannot assure that there are no other nationally representative surveys in countries where we obtained survey information from contacts. However, it is likely that these contacts would be aware of other surveys in their countries; in the distributed questionnaire, contacts were asked for details of all surveys in their country.

Conclusion

This review found that less than two-thirds of the 53 countries in the WHO European region conducted national diet and nutrition surveys since 1990, with only 22 countries reporting nutrient intake data since 2000. The main survey gaps for both adults and children lie in the Central and Eastern European countries, where nutrition policies may lack an appropriate evidence base. Differing dietary assessment methodologies may have impact on the ability to make inter-country comparisons; existing efforts to harmonise NDS across all ages, particularly guidelines set by EFSA (16), should be encouraged, including beyond Western Europe. It would therefore be beneficial to target future efforts at standardising methodologies and filling knowledge gaps for the countries that have no surveys post-2000 in order to increase the information available for evidence-based policy planning. By establishing which countries have NDS, this review lays the foundation for a future review and stratified analyses of actual nutrient intakes across population groups in Europe.

References

1. WHO (2014). European food and nutrition action plan 2015–2020. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Copenhagen.
2. Alwan A. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. World Health Organization; Copenhagen, 2011.
3. Mozaffarian D, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Beyond established and novel risk factors lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2008; 117(23): 3031–8.
4. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2013; 380(9859): 2224–60.
5. Micha R, Khatibzadeh S, Shi P, Fahimi S, Lim S, Andrews KG, et al. Global, regional, and national consumption levels of dietary fats and oils in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis including 266 country-specific nutrition surveys. BMJ 2014; 348: g2272.
6. EFCOSUM (2001). European Food Consumption Survey Method Final report. TNO Nutrition and Food Research: Zeist.
7. Barić IC, Cvjetić S, Šatalić Z. Dietary intakes among Croatian schoolchildren and adolescents. Nutr Health 2001; 15(2): 127–38.
8. WHO (forthcoming). STEPS noncommunicable disease risk factor surveillance Republic of Moldova (2013).
9. WHO (forthcoming). STEPS noncommunicable disease risk factor surveillance Krygyzstan (2013).
10. WHO (forthcoming). STEPS noncommunicable disease risk factor surveillance Turkmenistan (2014).
11. WHO (forthcoming). STEPS noncommunicable disease risk factor surveillance Armenia (2016).
12. WHO (forthcoming). STEPS noncommunicable disease risk factor surveillance Belarus (2017).
13. WHO (forthcoming). STEPS noncommunicable disease risk factor surveillance Georgia (2017).
14. WHO (forthcoming). STEPS noncommunicable disease risk factor surveillance Tajikistan (2017).
15. WHO and Ministry of Health of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2014). Uzbekistan STEPS Survey 2014 Factsheet. WHO: Copenhagen.
16. EFSA (2009). General principles for the collection of national food consumption data in the view of a pan-European dietary survey. Parma: EFSA; 2009.
17. WHO (2013). Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/country-work [cited 23 October 2016].
18. Ocke M, Brants H, Dofkova M, Freisling H, van Rossum C, Ruprich J, et al. Feasibility of dietary assessment methods, other tools and procedures for a pan-European food consumption survey among infants, toddlers and children. Eur J Nutr 2015; 54(5): 721–32.
19. Eurostat (2016). GDP per capita, consumption per capita and price level indices. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/GDP_per_capita,_consumption_per_capita_and_price_level_indices [cited 28 November 2016].
20. Holmes B, Nelson M. The strengths and weaknesses of dietary survey methods in materially deprived households in England: A discussion paper. Public Health Nutr 2009; 12(08): 1157–64.
21. Holmes B, Dick K, Nelson M. A comparison of four dietary assessment methods in materially deprived households in England. Public Health Nutr 2008; 11(05): 444–56.
22. Patterson RE, Pietinen P. Assessment of Nutritional Status in Individuals and Populations, in Public health nutrition. In: Gibney MJ, et al., eds. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2004, pp. 66–81.
23. Rennie KL, Coward A, Jebb SA. Estimating under-reporting of energy intake in dietary surveys using an individualised method. Br J Nutr 2007; 97(06): 1169–76.
24. Buttriss JL, Welch AA, Kearney JM, Lanham-New SA, eds. Public health nutrition. 2nd ed. The Nutrition Society Textbook Series, ed. T.N. Society. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 2018.
25. Ocké M, de Boer E, Brants H, van der Laan J, Niekerk M, van Rossum C, et al. PANCAKE – pilot study for the assessment of nutrient intake and food consumption among kids in Europe. Supporting Publications. Parma: EFSA; 2012.
26. Slimani N, Casagrande C, Nicolas G, Freisling H, Huybrechts I, Ocké MC, et al. The standardized computerized 24-h dietary recall method EPIC-Soft adapted for pan-European dietary monitoring. Eur J Clin Nutr 2011; 65(1): 5–15.
27. Carter MC, Albar SA, Morris MA, Mulla UZ, Hancock N, Evans CE, et al. Development of a UK online 24-h dietary assessment tool: Myfood24. Nutrients 2015; 7(6): 4016–32.
28. Moreiras GV, Ávila JM, Ruiz E. Energy balance, a new paradigm and methodological issues: The ANIBES study in Spain. Nutr Hosp 2015; 31(Suppl 3): 101–12.
29. Ruiz E, Ávila JM, Castillo A, Valero T, Del Pozo S, Rodriguez P, et al. The ANIBES study on energy balance in Spain: design, protocol and methodology. Nutrients 2015; 7(2): 970–98.
30. Ruiz E, Ávila JM, Valero T, Del Pozo S, Rodriguez P, Aranceta-Bartrina J, et al. Macronutrient distribution and dietary sources in the Spanish population: Findings from the ANIBES study. Nutrients 2016; 8(3): 177.
31. Merten C, Ferrari P, Bakker M, Boss A, Hearty A, Leclercq C, et al. Methodological characteristics of the national dietary surveys carried out in the European Union as included in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database. Food Addit Contam A 2011; 28(8): 975–95.
32. Ministeri de Salut, Benestar Social i Família (2007). Evaluation of the nutritional status of the Andorran population. Available from: http://www.salut.ad/images/microsites/AvaluacioNutricional_04-05/index.html [cited 28 February 2017].
33. Elmadfa I, Hasenegger V, Wagner K, Putz P, Weidl N-M, Wottawa D, et al. Österreichischer Ernährungsbericht 2012. Wien: Institut für Ernährungswissenschaften; 2012.
34. Elmadfa I, Friesling H, Nowak V, Hofstadter D. Austrian nutrition report 2008. Vienna: Federal Ministry for Health; 2009.
35. Elmadfa I, Burger P, Derndorfer E, Kiefer I, Kunze M, König J, et al. Österreichischer Ernährungsbericht 1998. Wien: Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Arbeit und Soziales; 1999.
36. Elmadfa I, Godina-Zarfl B, Dichtl M, König, JS. The Austrian study on nutritional status of 6-to 18-year-old pupils. Bibl Nutr Dieta 1994; 51: 62–7.
37. Bel S, Van den Abeele S, Lebacq T, Ost C, Brocatus L, Stievenart C, et al. Protocol of the Belgian food consumption survey 2014: objectives, design and methods. Arch Public Health 2016; 74(1): 1.
38. De RidderK. Enquête de consommation alimentaire 2014–2015: la consommation alimentaire, in Rapport 4. Brussels: WIV-ISP; 2016.
39. Temme E, Huybrechts I, Vandevijvere S, De Henauw S, Leveque A, Kornitzer M, et al. Energy and macronutrient intakes in Belgium: results from the first National Food Consumption Survey. Br J Nutr 2010; 103(12): 1823–9.
40. Petrova S, Baikova D, Angelova K, Rangelova L, Duleva V, Ovcharova D, et al. Nutrition in children 1–5 years of age in Bulgaria – energy and macronutrient intake. Bulgarian J Public Health 2010; 2(4): 55–65.
41. Petrova S, Rangelova L, Duleva V, Ovcharova D. Nutrition in children 1–5 years of age in Bulgaria – micronutrient intake. Bulgarian J Public Health 2010; 2(4): 66–73.
42. Petrova S, Rangelova L, Duleva V, Ovcharova D, Dimitrov P, Kalinov K, et al. Design and methodology of national survey on nutrition of infants and children under 5 years of age and family child rearing in Bulgaria. Bulgarian J Public Health 2010; 2(4): 1–11.
43. Tornaritis MJ, Philippou E, Hadjigeorgiou C, Kourides YA, Panayi A, Savva SCet al.. A study of the dietary intake of Cypriot children and adolescents aged 6–18 years and the association of mother’s educational status and children’s weight status on adherence to nutritional recommendations. BMC Public Health 2014; 14(1): 1–11.
44. Dofkova M, Ruprich J, Jakubikova M, Rehurkova I, Blahova J. Czech national food consumption survey: method and application of results. Arch Public Health 2010; 68(Suppl 1): S24.
45. National Institute of Public Health (2015). Environmental health monitoring system in the Czech Republic: summary report 2014. Prague: National Institute of Public Health; 2015
46. Pedersen A, Christensen T, Matthiessen J, Knudsen VK, Rosenlund-Sorensen M, Biltoft-Jensen A, et al. Danskernes Kostvaner 2011–2013. Hovedresultater. Søborg, Denmark: DTU Fødevareinstitute; 2015.
47. Pedersen A, Fagt S, Groth MV, Christensen T, Biltoft-Jensen A, Matthiessen J, et al. Danskernes Kostvaner 2003–2008. Hovedresultater. Søborg, Denmark: DTU Fødevareinstitute; 2010.
48. Lyhne N, Christensen T, Groth MV, Fagt S, Biltoft-Jensen A, Hartkopp H, et al. Danskernes kostvaner 2000–2002. Hovedresultater. Søborg, Denmark: Danmarks Fødevareforskning; 2005.
49. Andersen N, Fagt S, Groth MV, Hartkopp H, Moller A, Ovesen L, et al. Danskernes kostvaner 1995: Hovedresultater. Søborg, Denmark: Levnedsmiddelstyrelsen; 1996.
50. Pomerleau J, McKee M, Robertson A, Kadziauskiene K, Abaravicius A, Vaask S, et al. Macronutrient and food intake in the Baltic republics. Eur J Clin Nutr 2001; 55(3): 200–207.
51. Pomerleau J, McKee M, Robertson A, Vaask S, Pudule I, Grinberger D, et al. Nutrition and Lifestyle in the Baltic Republics. Copenhagen: European Centre on Health of Societies in Transistion & World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 1999.
52. Helldán A, Raulio S, Kosola M, Tapanainen H, Ovaskainen ML, Virtanen S. Finravinto 2012-tutkimus-The National FINDIET 2012 Survey. Raportti: 2013_016. Raportti, Helsinki. 2013.
53. Pietinen P, Paturi M, Reinivuo H, Tapanainen H, Valsta LM. FINDIET 2007 Survey: energy and nutrient intakes. Public Health Nutr 2010; 13: 920–4.
54. Reinivuo H, Hirvonen T, Ovaskainen M, Korhonen T, Valsta LM. Dietary survey methodology of FINDIET 2007 with a risk assessment perspective. Public Health Nutr 2010; 13(6A): 915–19.
55. Männistö S, Ovaskainen M, Valsta LM, Korhonen T, Nissinen K, Pakkala H, et al. Finravinto 2002 – Tutkimus. The National FINDIET 2002 Study. Helsinki: Kansanterveyslaitos (KTL); 2003.
56. FINDIET Study Group et al. The 1997 dietary survey of Finnish adults. Helsinki: Publications of the National Public Health Institute B8; 1998.
57. Kleemola P, Virtanen M, Pietinen P. The 1992 dietary survey of Finnish adults. Helsinki: Kansanterveyslaitos; 1994.
58. Tavoularis G. Nutri-Bébé 2013 Study Part 1. Presentation and methodological considerations. Arch Pédiatr 2015; 22(10): 10S1–S6.
59. Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (AFSSA) (2009). Étude Individuelle Nationale des Consommations Alimentaires 2 (INCA2) (2006–2007). Rapport. Maisons-Alfort: AFSSA; 2009, pp. 1–28.
60. Castetbon K, Vernay M, Malon A, Salanave B, Deschamps V, Roudier C, et al. Dietary intake, physical activity and nutritional status in adults: the French nutrition and health survey (ENNS, 2006–2007). Br J Nutr 2009; 102(05): 733–43.
61. Fantino M, Gourmet E. Apports nutritionnels en France en 2005 chez les enfants non allaités âgés de moins de 36 mois. Arch Pédiatr 2008; 15(4): 446–55.
62. Volatier J. Enquête INCA Individuelle et Nationale sur les Consommations Alimentaires (National and Individual Survey on Eating Consumptions). AFSSA; Paris. 2000.
63. Boggio V, Grossiord A, Guyon S, Fuchs F, Fantino M. Consommation alimentaire des nourrissons et des enfants en bas âge en France en 1997. Arch Pédiatr 1999; 6(7): 740–7.
64. Rigaud D, Giachetti I, Deheeger M, Borys JM, Volatier JL, Lemoine A, et al. Enquête française de consommation alimentaire. I. Energie et macronutriments. Cahiers Nutr Diététique 1997; 32(6): 379–89.
65. Hartmann BM, Heuer T, Hoffmann I. The German Nutrient Database: Effect of different versions on the calculated energy and nutrient intake of the German population. J Food Compost Anal 2015; 42: 26–9.
66. Nationale Verzehrsstudie II (2008). Ergebnisbericht Teil 1. Karlsruhe: Max Rubner-Institut Karlsruhe.
67. Kurth B-M. Der Kinder-und Jugendgesundheitssurvey (KiGGS): Ein Überblick über Planung, Durchführung und Ergebnisse unter Berücksichtigung von Aspekten eines Qualitätsmanagements. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz 2007; 50(5–6): 533–46.
68. Mensink G, Thamm M, Haas K. Die Ernahrung in Deutschland 1998. Gesundheitswesen 1999; 61(2): S200–6.
69. Hellenic Health Foundation, Greek Ministry of Health, and the Hellenic Center for Disease Control & Prevention. HYDRIA – Health and Nutrition of the Population in Greece. Available from: http://www.hhf-greece.gr/hydria-nhns.gr/index_eng.html [cited 16 March 2017].
70. Trichopoulou A, HYDRIA. Program and targeted action for the health and nutrition of the Greek population: the development and implementation methodology and mapping. Greek Health Foundation; Athens. 2015.
71. Manios Y, Grammatikaki E, Papoutsou S, Liarigkovinos T, Kondaki K, Moschonis G. Nutrient intakes of toddlers and preschoolers in Greece: the GENESIS study. J Am Diet Assoc 2008; 108(2): 357–361.
72. Lugasi A. Sarkadi Nagy E, Zentai A, Bakacs M, Illes E, Baldauf Z, Martos E. Országos Táplálkozás és Tápláltsági Állapot Vizsgálat – OTÁP2009. Budapest: Országos Élelmezés- és Táplálkozástudományi Intézet; 2012.
73. Bíró L, Szeitz-Szabó M, Bíró G, Sali J. Dietary survey in Hungary, 2009. Part II: Vitamins, macro-and microelements, food supplements and food allergy. Acta Aliment 2011; 40: 301–312.
74. Szeitz-Szabó M, Bíró L, Bíró G. & Sali J. Dietary survey in Hungary, 2009. Part I. Macronutrients, alcohol, caffeine, fibre. Acta Aliment 2011; 40: 142–52.
75. Zajkás G, Bíró L, Greiner E. T. 4áplálkozási vizsgálat Magyarországon, 2003–2004. Mikro-tápanyagbevitel: vitaminok [Dietary survey in Hungary, 2003–2004. Micro-nutrient intake: vitamins]. Orvosi Hetilap [Hung Med J] 2007; 148: 1593–1600.
76. Bíró G, Antal M, Zajkás G. Nutrition survey of the Hungarian population in a randomized trial between 1992–1994. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996; 50(4): 201–8.
77. Steingrímsdóttir L, Valgeirsdottir H, Halldorsson TI, Gunnarsdottir I, Gisladottir E, Þorgeirsdottir H, Þorsdottir I. Kannanir á mataræði og næringargildi fæðunnar á Íslandi. Læknablaðið 2014; 100: 659–64.
78. Steingrimsdottir L, Valgeirsdottir H, Halldorsson TI, Gunnarsdottir I, Gisladottir E, Þorgeirsdottir H, et al. National nutrition surveys and dietary changes in Iceland. Læknablaðið 2014; 100(12): 659–64.
79. Þorgeirsdóttir H, Valgeirsdóttir H, Gunnarsdóttir I, Gísladóttir E, Gunnarsdóttir BE, Þórsdóttir I, et al. Hvað borða Íslendingar? Könnun á mataræði Íslendinga 2010–2011 Helstu niðurstöður. Embætti landlæknis, Matvælastofnun, Rannsóknastofa í næringarfræði við Háskóla Íslands, Landspítala-háskólasjúkrahús; Reykjavik. 2011.
80. Steingrímsdóttir L, Þorgeirsdóttir H, Ólafsdóttir A. Hvað borða Íslendingar? Könnun á mataræði Íslendinga 2002. Helstu niðurstöður. Rannsóknir Manneldisráðs Íslands V; Reykjavik. 2002.
81. Steingrimsdottir L. Nutrition in Iceland. Scand J Nutr (Sweden) 1993; 37: 10–112.
82. Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance. The national pre-school food survey. Aviailable from: http://www.iuna.net/?p=169 [cited 27 July 2016].
83. Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance (IUNA) (2011). National adult nutrition survey: summary report on food and nutrient intakes, physical measurements, physical activity patterns and food choice motives. IUNA, Dublin.
84. Li K, McNulty BA, Tiernery AM, Devlin NFC, Joyce T, Leite JC, et al. Dietary fat intakes in Irish adults in 2011: how much has changed in 10 years? Br J Nutr 2016; 115(10): 1798–809.
85. Harrington J, Perry I, Lutomski J, Morgan K, McGee H, Shelley E, et al. SLÁN 2007: Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition in Ireland. Dietary Habits of the Irish Population. Department of Health and Children. Dublin: TSO; 2008.
86. Morgan K, McGee H, Watson D, Perry I, Barry M, Shelley E, et al. SLAN 2007: survey of lifestyle, attitudes & nutrition in Ireland: main report. Dublin: Department of Health and Children; 2008.
87. Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance. The national teen’s food survey (2005–2006). Aviailable from: http://www.iuna.net/?p=29 [cited 27 July 2016].
88. Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance. The national children’s food survey (2003–2004). Aviailable from: http://www.iuna.net/?p=27 [cited 27 July 2016].
89. Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance (IUNA). North/South Ireland food consumption survey: summary report on food and nutrient intakes, anthropometry, attitudinal data & physical activity patterns. Dublin: Food Safety Promotion Board; 2001.
90. Lee P, Cunningham K. Irish National Nutrition Survey (INNS). Dublin: Irish Nutrition and Dietetic Institute; 1990.
91. Sette S,Le Donne C,Piccinelli R,Arcella D,Turrini A,Leclercq C . The third Italian National Food Consumption Survey, INRAN-SCAI 2005–06 – Part 1: Nutrient intakes in Italy. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2011; 21(12): 922–32.
92. Turrini A,Saba A,Perrone D,Cialfa E,D’amicis A . Original communications-food consumption patterns in Italy: the INN-CA Study 1994–1996. Eur J Clin Nutr 2001; 55(7): 571–88.
93. Joffe R,Ozolinš G,Šantare D,Bartkevics V,Mike L,Briška I . The national food consumption survey of LATVIA, 2007–2009, Nacionalais diagnostikas centrs and P.u.v.d.P. centrs Riga: Zemkopibas ministrija; 2009.
94. Barzda A,BBartkevicˇiuˉte˙ R,Baltušyte I,Stukas R,Bartkevicˇiuˉte˙, S . Suaugusių ir pagyvenusių lietuvos gyventojų faktinės mitybos ir mitybos įpročių tyrimas. Visuomenės sveikata 2016; 72(1): 85–94.
95. Barzda A,Bartkevicˇiuˉte˙ R,Abaravicius JA,Stukas R,Satkute R . Food Consumption survey in adult Lithuanian population: nutrient daily intake. Ann Nutr Metab 2009; 55: 212.
96. Barzda A,Jankauskiene˙ K,Tutkuviene˙ J,Didžiapetriene˙ J,Gefenas E,Tamošiuˉnas A, et al. Study and evaluation of actual nutrition and nutrition habits of Lithuanian adult population. Vilniaus universitetas; Zwolle, Vilnius, 2011.
97. RIVM, National Institue for Public Health and the Environment (2017). Dutch national food consumption survey; Zwolle. Available from: http://www.rivm.nl/en/Topics/D/Dutch_National_Food_Consumption_Survey [cited 16 March 2017].
98. Van Rossum CTM,Fransen HP,Verkaik-Kloosterman J,buurma EM,Ocke MC . Dutch national food consumption survey 2007–2010|Part 6 Micronutrients. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2011.
99. Van Rossum CTM,Fransen HP,Verkaik-Kloosterman J,buurma EM,Ocke MC . Dutch national food consumption survey 2007–2010|Part 5 Macronutrients. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2011.
100. Van Rossum C,Fransen HP,Verkaik-Kloosterman J,Buurma-Rethans EJM,Ocké MC . Dutch national food consumption survey 2007–2010: diet of children and adults aged 7 to 69 years. Bilthoven; RIVM; 2011.
101. Ocke M,van Rossum CTM,Fransen HP,Buurma EM,de Boer EJ,Brants HAM . Dutch national food consumption survey young children 2005/2006. Voedselconsumptiepeiling bij peuters en kleuters 2005/2006. Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM; 2008.
102. Ocké M, Hulshof K, Van Rossum C. The Dutch national food consumption survey 2003. Methodological issues. Arch Public Health 2005; 63: 227–41.
103. Hulshof K,Brussaard JH,Kruizinga AG,Telman J,Löwik MRH . Socio-economic status, dietary intake and 10 year trends: the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003; 57(1): 128–37.
104. Hansen L, Myhre, Andersen LF, UNGKOST 3 Landsomfattende kostholdsundersøkelse blant 4-åringer i Norge, 2016. Helsedirektoratet. Oslo: Folkehelseninstituttet; 2016.
105. Hansen L,Myhre JB,Johansen AMW,Paulsen MM,Andersen LF . UNGKOST 3 Landsomfattende kostholdsundersøkelse blant elever i 4. -og 8. klasse i Norge, 2015. Helsedirektoratet. Oslo: Folkehelseninstituttet; 2015.
106. Totland T,Melnæs BK,Lundberg-Hallén N,Helland-Kigen KM,Lund-Blix NA,Myhre JB, et al. Norkost 3. En landsomfattende kostholdsundersøkelse blant menn og kvinner i Norge i alderen; Helsedirektoratet, Oslo. 2012, pp. 18–70.
107. Parr CL,Hjartaker A,Scheel I,Lund E,Laake P,Veierod MB . Comparing methods for handling missing values in food-frequency questionnaires and proposing k nearest neighbours imputation: effects on dietary intake in the Norwegian Women and Cancer study (NOWAC). Public Health Nutr 2008; 11(4): 361–70.
108. Øverby NC, Andersen LF, Ungkost 2000. Landsomfattende kostholdundersøkelse blant elever i 2002; 4.
109. Johansson L, Solvoll K. NORKOST 1997. National dietary survey among men and women aged 16–79 years. Report 3/1999. Oslo: National Council on Nutrition and Physical Activity; 1999.
110. Johansson L,Solvoll K,Bjørneboe GE,Drevon CA . Dietary habits among Norwegian men and women. Scand J Nutr Naringsforskning 1997; 41(2): 63–70.
111. Andersen LF,Nes M,Sandstad B,Bjørneboe GE,Drevon CA . Dietary intake among Norwegian adolescents. Eur J Clin Nutr 1995; 49(8): 555–64.
112. Drygas W,Niklas AA,Piwon´ska A,Piotrowski W,Flotyn´ska A,Kwas´niewska M . Multi-center National Population Health Examination Survey (WOBASZ II study): assumptions, methods and implementation. Kardiologia Polska 2015; 74(1): 681–90.
113. Szponar L,Sekula W,Nelson M,Weisell R . The household food consumption and anthropometric survey in Poland. Public Health Nutr 2001; 4(5B): 1183–6.
114. Szponar L, Rychlik E. Nutrition mode and nutritional status of boys and men in Poland. Żywienie Człowieka i Metabolizm. Suplement 1996; 23(2): 3–37.
115. Szponar L, Rychlik E. Nutrition mode and nutritional status of girls and women in Poland. Żywienie Człowieka i Metabolizm. Suplement 1996; 23(2): 38–70.
116. Lopes C,Torres D,Oliveira A,Severo M,Alarcã;o V,Guiomar S, et al. Inquérito Alimentar Nacional e de Atividade Física (IAN-AF), 2015–2016 Part 1 Methodological Report. Porto: University of Porto; 2017.
117. Lopes C,Torres D,Oliveira A,Severo M,Alarcã;o V,Guiomar S, et al. Inquérito Alimentar Nacional e de Atividade Física (IAN-AF), 2015–2016 Part 2 Report. Porto: University of Porto; 2017.
118. Moreira P,Padez C,Mourao I,Rosado V . Dietary calcium and body mass index in Portuguese children. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005; 59(7): 861–7.
119. Kozyreva P, Kosolapov M, Popkin BM, Data resource profile: The Russia longitudinal monitoring survey – Higher school of economics (RLMS-HSE) Phase II: Monitoring the economic and health situation in Russia, 1994–2013. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45(2): 395–401.
120. Zohoori N,Henderson L,Gleiter K,Popkin B . Monitoring health conditions in the Russian Federation: The Russia longitudinal monitoring survey 1992–98. US Agency for International Development; Washington 1999.
121. Babinská K, Béderová A. Changes in nutrient intake in the adult population of the Slovak Republic. J Food Compost Anal 2002; 15(4): 359–65.
122. Babinska K, Bederova A, Bartekova S. Dietary pattern in the adult population from selected areas of Slovac Republic. Eur J Epidemiol 1998; 52: S59.
123. Fidler Mis N, Kobe H, Štimec M. Dietary intake of macro-and micronutrients in Slovenian adolescents: comparison with reference values. Ann Nutr Metab 2012; 61(4): 305–13.
124. Blenkuš, MG,Gregoricˇ M,Tivadar B,Koch V,Kostanjevec S,Turk VF, et al. Prehrambene navade odraslih prebivalcev Slovenije z vidika varovanja zdravja. Pedagoška fakulteta; Ljubljana. 2009.
125. Marcos SV,Rubio MJ,Sanchidrián FR,Robledo D . Spanish National dietary survey in adults, elderly and pregnant women. EFSA Support Pub 2016; 13(6): 1–33.
126. Marcos Suarez V,Rubio MJ,Sanchidrián FR,Robledo D . Spanish national dietary survey on children and adolescents. EFSA Support Pub 2015; 12(11): 1–23.
127. AESAN (2011). ENIDE Encuesta Nacional de Ingesta Dietética Española 2011, A.E.d.S.A.y. Nutricion. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Politica Social e Igualdad.
128. AESAN (2011). Evaluación nutricional de la dieta española. i energía y macronutrientes Sobre datos de la Encuesta Nacional de Ingesta Dietética (ENIDE), A.E.d.S.A.y. Nutricion. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad.
129. AESAN (2011). Evaluación nutricional de la dieta española. ii micronutrientes Sobre datos de la Encuesta Nacional de Ingesta Dietética (ENIDE). A.E.d.S.A.y. Nutricion. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad; 2011.
130. Estévez-Santiago R, Beltrán-de-Miguel B, Olmedilla-Alonso B. Assessment of dietary lutein, zeaxanthin and lycopene intakes and sources in the Spanish survey of dietary intake (2009–2010). Int J Food Sci Nutr 2016; 67(3): 305–313.
131. Pérez-Rodrigo C,Ribas L, Serra-Majem Ll,Aranceta J . Food preferences of Spanish children and young people: the enKid study. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003; 57: S45–8.
132. Serra-Majem Ll,Ribas L,García A,Pérez-Rodrigo C,Aranceta J . Nutrient adequacy and Mediterranean Diet in Spanish school children and adolescents. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003; 57: S35–9.
133. Amcoff E,Edberg A,Enghardt BH,Lindroos AK,Nälsén C,Pearson M, et al. Riksmaten – vuxna 2010–11 Livsmedels- och näringsintag bland vuxna i Sverige. Livsmedelsverket; Uppsala. 2012.
134. Enghardt B, Pearson M, Becker W. Riksmaten – barn 2003. Livsmedels-och näringsintag bland barn i Sverige. Livsmedelsverket; Uppsala. 2006.
135. Becker W, Pearson M. Riksmaten 1997–1998. Kostvanor och näringsintag i Sverige-Metod-och resultaatanalys. Uppsala: Livsmedelsverket.
136. Güler S,Budakog˘lu I,Besler HT,Pekcan AG,Türkyılmaz AS,Çıngı H, et al. Methodology of National Turkey Nutrition and Health survey (TNHS) 2010. Med J Islamic World Acad Sci 2014; 22(1): 7–29.
137. Turkey Ministry of Health (2014). Türkiye Beslenme ve Sağlık Araştırması 2010: Beslenme Durumu ve Alışkanlıklarının Değerlendirilmesi Sonuç Raporu. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık. Istanbul.
138. Bates B,Cox L,Nicholson S,Page P,Prentice A,Steer T,Swan G . National diet and nutrition survey results from years 5 and 6 (combined) of the rolling programme (2012/2013–2013/2014). London: Public Health England & Food Standards Agency; 2016.
139. Bates B,Lennox A,Prentice A,Bates C,Page P,Nicholson S, et al. National diet and nutrition survey: results from years 1, 2, 3 and 4 combined of the rolling program (2008/9–2011/12). London: Public Health England; 2014.
140. Nelson M,Erens B,Bates B,Church S,Boshier T . Low income diet and nutrition survey: summary of key findings. London: TSO; 2007.
141. Henderson L,Gregory J,Irving K,Swan G . National diet and nutrition survey: adults aged 19 to 64 years. Volume 2: energy, protein, carbohydrate, fat and alcohol intake. London: TSO; 2002.
142. Gregory J,Lowe S,Bates CJ,Prentice A,Jackson LV,Smithers G, et al. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: young people aged 4 to 18 years; volume 1: report of the diet and nutrition survey. London: Stationery Office; 2000.
143. Finch S,Doyle W,Lowe C,Bates CJ,Prentice A,Smithers G, et al. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: people aged 65 years and over. Volume 1: report of the diet and nutrition survey. London: TSO; 1998.
144. de Boer EJ,Slimani N, van ‘t Veer P,Boeing H,Feinberg M,Leclercq C, et al. The European Food Consumption Validation Project: conclusions and recommendations. Eur J Clin Nutr 2011; 65: 102–107.
145. Rippin HL,Hutchinson J,Jewell J,Breda JJ,Cade JE . Adult nutrient intakes from current national dietary surveys of European populations. Nutrients 2017; 9(12): 1288.
146. Bel-Serrat S,Huybrechts I,Thumann BF,Hebestreit A,Abuja M,de Henauw S, et al. Inventory of surveillance systems assessing dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours in Europe: a DEDIPAC study. Eur J Public Health 2017; 27(4): 747–55.

Appendix 1

Questionnaire concerning nationally representative diet and nutrition surveys and their methodologies

Please complete one questionnaire per diet and nutrition survey (DNS) for questions 1–3; if necessary make multiple copies. If there any questions in sections 1–3 that you cannot answer, please provide contact details of a person(s) who may be able to answer the outstanding questions.

Please email the completed questionnaire(s) to Holly Rippin fshr@leeds.ac.uk at the University of Leeds, who will be collating this information for the European Office of the World Health Organization.

Country: xxx

Contact (please provide the correct contact person if this is incorrect): Prof/Dr. xxx

1. For each DNS carried out in your country since 1990 please fill in the below information:

   Please note that any survey to be included should meet the following criteria:

   • The survey should collect dietary intakes across all food groups which are then converted into nutrient values.
   • The survey uses national population-based samples or representative regional samples.
   • The survey should not be restricted to a specific part of the population (e.g. children, occupational groups or patients).
   • Preferably there should be plans to repeat the survey later, unless it already has been repeated. You can also record standalone surveys.
   • Survey name ………………………………………………
   • Year(s) when survey data collected……………………....
   • Dietary assessment method/tool used…………………...
   • Genders included in sample………………………………
   • Age ranges included in sample…………………………...
   • Sample size (N)
   • National or regional ……………………………..............
   • Nationally representative (yes/no).………………........…
   • Institute responsible for the survey………………………
   • Key contact for survey………………...............…………
   • Email for contact person listed above……………………

2. Please provide details of any relevant publications e.g. summary reports, user guides (please provide web links)

3. Macro and micro nutrients included in your DNS (please tick all that apply):

   Energy

   Total carbohydrates

   • Sugars
   • Sucrose
   • Starches
   • Fibre

   Total fat

   • Saturates
   • MUFA
   • PUFA
   • Trans fatty acids

   Protein

   Vitamins:

   • Folic acid
   • Niacin
   • Retinol equivalents
   • Riboflavin
   • Thiamine
   • B12
   • B6

   Minerals:

   • Calcium
   • Magnesium
   • Potassium
   • Sodium
   • Iron
   • Copper
   • Fluoride
   • Iodine
   • Selenium
   • Zinc

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

* Key