Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

A systematic evaluation of seven different scores representing the EAT–Lancet reference diet and mortality, stroke, and greenhouse gas emissions in three cohorts

Stubbendorff, Anna LU orcid ; Stern, Dalia ; Ericson, Ulrika LU ; Sonestedt, Emily LU orcid ; Hallström, Elinor ; Borné, Yan LU ; Lajous, Martin ; Forouhi, Nita G. ; Olsen, Anja and Dahm, Christina C. , et al. (2024) In The Lancet Planetary Health 8(6). p.391-401
Abstract

Different approaches have been used for translation of the EAT–Lancet reference diet into dietary scores that can be used to assess health and environmental impact. Our aim was to compare the different EAT–Lancet diet scores, and to estimate their associations with all-cause mortality, stroke incidence, and greenhouse gas emissions. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42021286597) to identify different scores representing adherence to the EAT–Lancet reference diet. We then qualitatively compared the diet adherence scores, including their ability to group individuals according the EAT–Lancet reference diet recommendations, and quantitatively assessed the associations of the diet scores with health and environmental outcome data in... (More)

Different approaches have been used for translation of the EAT–Lancet reference diet into dietary scores that can be used to assess health and environmental impact. Our aim was to compare the different EAT–Lancet diet scores, and to estimate their associations with all-cause mortality, stroke incidence, and greenhouse gas emissions. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42021286597) to identify different scores representing adherence to the EAT–Lancet reference diet. We then qualitatively compared the diet adherence scores, including their ability to group individuals according the EAT–Lancet reference diet recommendations, and quantitatively assessed the associations of the diet scores with health and environmental outcome data in three diverse cohorts: the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health Cohort (DCH; n=52 452), the Swedish Malmö Diet and Cancer Cohort (MDC; n=20 973), and the Mexican Teachers’ Cohort (MTC; n=30 151). The DCH and MTC used food frequency questionnaires and the MDC used a modified diet history method to assess dietary intake, which we used to compute EAT–Lancet diet scores and evaluate the associations of scores with hazard of all-cause mortality and stroke. In the MDC, dietary greenhouse gas emission values were summarised for every participant, which we used to predict greenhouse gas emissions associated with varying diet adherence scores on each scoring system. In our review, seven diet scores were identified (Knuppel et al, 2019; Trijsburg et al, 2020; Cacau et al, 2021; Hanley-Cook et al, 2021; Kesse-Guyot et al, 2021; Stubbendorff et al, 2022; and Colizzi et al, 2023). Two of the seven scores (Stubbendorff and Colizzi) were among the most consistent in grouping participants according to the EAT–Lancet reference diet recommendations across cohorts, and higher scores (greater diet adherence) were associated with decreased risk of mortality (in the DCH and MDC), decreased risk of incident stroke (in the DCH and MDC for the Stubbendorff score; and in the DCH for the Colizzi score), and decreased predicted greenhouse gas emissions in the MDC. We conclude that the seven different scores representing the EAT–Lancet reference diet had differences in construction, interpretation, and relation to disease and climate-related outcomes. Two scores generally performed well in our evaluation. Future studies should carefully consider which diet score to use and preferably use multiple scores to assess the robustness of estimations, given that public health and environmental policy rely on these estimates.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
The Lancet Planetary Health
volume
8
issue
6
pages
391 - 401
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • pmid:38849181
  • scopus:85195041394
ISSN
2542-5196
DOI
10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00094-9
language
English
LU publication?
yes
additional info
Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license
id
89f38bc6-9330-46f0-a567-87266f9307f5
date added to LUP
2024-06-17 12:49:07
date last changed
2024-11-05 03:22:43
@article{89f38bc6-9330-46f0-a567-87266f9307f5,
  abstract     = {{<p>Different approaches have been used for translation of the EAT–Lancet reference diet into dietary scores that can be used to assess health and environmental impact. Our aim was to compare the different EAT–Lancet diet scores, and to estimate their associations with all-cause mortality, stroke incidence, and greenhouse gas emissions. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42021286597) to identify different scores representing adherence to the EAT–Lancet reference diet. We then qualitatively compared the diet adherence scores, including their ability to group individuals according the EAT–Lancet reference diet recommendations, and quantitatively assessed the associations of the diet scores with health and environmental outcome data in three diverse cohorts: the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health Cohort (DCH; n=52 452), the Swedish Malmö Diet and Cancer Cohort (MDC; n=20 973), and the Mexican Teachers’ Cohort (MTC; n=30 151). The DCH and MTC used food frequency questionnaires and the MDC used a modified diet history method to assess dietary intake, which we used to compute EAT–Lancet diet scores and evaluate the associations of scores with hazard of all-cause mortality and stroke. In the MDC, dietary greenhouse gas emission values were summarised for every participant, which we used to predict greenhouse gas emissions associated with varying diet adherence scores on each scoring system. In our review, seven diet scores were identified (Knuppel et al, 2019; Trijsburg et al, 2020; Cacau et al, 2021; Hanley-Cook et al, 2021; Kesse-Guyot et al, 2021; Stubbendorff et al, 2022; and Colizzi et al, 2023). Two of the seven scores (Stubbendorff and Colizzi) were among the most consistent in grouping participants according to the EAT–Lancet reference diet recommendations across cohorts, and higher scores (greater diet adherence) were associated with decreased risk of mortality (in the DCH and MDC), decreased risk of incident stroke (in the DCH and MDC for the Stubbendorff score; and in the DCH for the Colizzi score), and decreased predicted greenhouse gas emissions in the MDC. We conclude that the seven different scores representing the EAT–Lancet reference diet had differences in construction, interpretation, and relation to disease and climate-related outcomes. Two scores generally performed well in our evaluation. Future studies should carefully consider which diet score to use and preferably use multiple scores to assess the robustness of estimations, given that public health and environmental policy rely on these estimates.</p>}},
  author       = {{Stubbendorff, Anna and Stern, Dalia and Ericson, Ulrika and Sonestedt, Emily and Hallström, Elinor and Borné, Yan and Lajous, Martin and Forouhi, Nita G. and Olsen, Anja and Dahm, Christina C. and Ibsen, Daniel B.}},
  issn         = {{2542-5196}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{6}},
  pages        = {{391--401}},
  publisher    = {{Elsevier}},
  series       = {{The Lancet Planetary Health}},
  title        = {{A systematic evaluation of seven different scores representing the EAT–Lancet reference diet and mortality, stroke, and greenhouse gas emissions in three cohorts}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00094-9}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00094-9}},
  volume       = {{8}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}