Publications by authors named "Katie Dick"

3 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

A comparison of four dietary assessment methods in materially deprived households in England.

Public Health Nutr 2008 May 3;11(5):444-56. Epub 2007 Aug 3.

Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London, UK.

Objectives: Low-income households in the UK concentrate factors associated with poor record-keeping such as lower literacy, numeracy and English language skills. The present study aimed to (1) compare the validity and acceptability of three dietary survey methods against appropriate reference measures and (2) identify a method which was both valid and acceptable in low-income households.

Design: Cross-sectional design comparing three 4-day dietary survey methods (multiple-pass 24-hour recall, food checklist and semi-weighed method) against a 4-day weighed inventory and other reference measures within subjects.

Setting: London, UK, 2001.

Subjects: Low-income households were selected using a doorstep screening questionnaire in 18 of the 60 most deprived neighbourhoods in London. Results are based on 384 respondents (159 males, 225 females) aged 2-90 years in 240 households. Respondents were mainly White (48%), Black or Black British (31%) or Asian or Asian British (9%).

Results: The dietary survey method preferred by interviewers was the 24-hour recall. Most respondents preferred the food checklist. Compared with the weighed inventory, repeat 24-hour recalls and the food checklist yielded higher estimates of energy and nutrient intakes. The semi-weighed method was least liked and yielded the lowest estimates of intake.

Conclusions: Based partly on evidence presented here and partly on evidence to be presented in later publications, four multiple-pass 24-hour recalls were recommended as the most appropriate method for a national study of diet and nutrition in low-income households in the UK.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
May 2008

Genomic imprinting and the expression of affect in Angelman syndrome: what's in the smile?

J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2007 Jun;48(6):571-9

School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK.

Background: Kinship theory (or the genomic conflict hypothesis) proposes that the phenotypic effects of genomic imprinting arise from conflict between paternally and maternally inherited alleles. A prediction arising for social behaviour from this theory is that imbalance in this conflict resulting from a deletion of a maternally imprinted gene, as in Angelman syndrome (AS), will result in a behavioural phenotype that should evidence behaviours that increase access to maternally provided social resources (adult contact).

Method: Observation of the social behaviour of children with AS (n = 13), caused by a deletion at 15q11-q13, and a matched comparison group (n = 10) was undertaken for four hours in a socially competitive setting and the effect of adult attention on child behaviours and the effect of child smiling on adult behaviours evaluated using group comparisons and observational lag sequential analyses.

Results: The AS group smiled more than the comparison group in all settings, which had different levels of adult attention, and more when the level of adult attention was high. Smiling by children with AS evoked higher levels of adult attention, eye contact and smiling both than by chance and in comparison to other children and this effect was sustained for 30 s to 50 s. Smiling by children with AS was frequently preceded by child initiated contact toward the adult.

Discussion: The results are consistent with a kinship theory explanation of the function of heightened levels of sociability and smiling in Angelman syndrome and provide support for an emotion signalling interpretation of the mechanism by which smiling accesses social resources. Further research on other behaviours characteristic of Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes warrant examination from this perspective.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
June 2007

Food budget standards and dietary adequacy in low-income families.

Proc Nutr Soc 2002 Nov;61(4):569-77

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NN, UK.

Budget standards are specified baskets of goods and services which, when priced, can represent predefined living standards. 'Low cost but acceptable' (LCA) is a minimum income standard, adequate to provide warmth and shelter, a healthy and palatable diet, social necessities, social integration, avoidance of chronic stress and the maintenance of good health (physical, mental and social) in a context of free access to good-quality health care, good-quality education and social justice. The LCA food budget standard identifies a basket of foods and corresponding menus which provides (for a given household composition) a palatable diet that is consistent with prevailing cultural norms, and that satisfies existing criteria for health in relation to dietary reference values, food-based dietary guidelines and safe levels of alcohol consumption. Two previous studies that explored the relationship between diet and food expenditure in low-income households suggested that the amount spent on food was a good predictor of dietary adequacy, growth and health in children. The current paper will focus on diet and measures of deprivation in 250 low-income households in London. Households were screened for material deprivation (e.g. no car, no fixed line telephone, in receipt of Income Support) using a doorstep questionnaire. Diet was assessed using four 24 h recalls based on the 'triple pass' method. Expenditure on food and other aspects of household circumstances were assessed by face-to-face interview. Food expenditure in these households was characterized in relation to food budget standards. Further analyses explored the relationships between food expenditure and dietary adequacy, growth in children and measures of deprivation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source Listing
November 2002