CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较称重法、频率法与24 h尿钠法评估人群食盐摄入量的差异和相关性。方法于2011年6—9月在山东省采用多阶段分层随机抽样方法抽取18～69岁居民作为调查对象，共计2184名。分别采用24 h尿钠法、称重法和频率法进行食盐摄入量调查。同时记录3 d内家庭用餐人员（包括客人）的性别、年龄、就餐情况、劳动强度。采用问卷调查个人膳食习惯。结果24 h尿钠法、称重法和频率法调查的食盐摄入量分别为14．0、12．0和10．5 g／d。与24 h尿钠法相比，称重法和频率法每天食盐平均摄入量分别低2．0 g和3．4 g，分别低估了14．3％和24．3％；利用称重法和频率法低估和高估食盐摄入量的个体比例分别为42．4％（856／2020）、55．3％（1117／2020）和20．7％（418／2020）、16．3％（329／2020），即分别有36．9％（745／2020）和28．4％（574／2020）的个体其食盐摄入量在24 h尿钠法结果的±25％以内。称重法和频率法调查的食盐摄入量均与24 h尿钠法呈正相关（P＜0．01），相关系数分别为0．13和0．07。采用三种方法调查的食盐摄入量均随着调查对象自我感觉咸淡口味的加重而逐渐增加。自认为口味偏淡、适中和偏咸的三组人群采用三种方法调查的平均食盐摄入量分别为：24 h尿钠法为13．6、13．6和14．7 g／d；称重法为11．0、12．0和12．7g／d；频率法为9．3、10．2和11．9 g／d，差异均有统计学意义（24 h尿钠法：F＝0．47，P＜0．05；称重法：F＝5．83， P＜0．05；频率法：F＝12．53，P＜0．01）。结论与24 h尿钠法相比，称重法和频率法均低估了实际食盐摄入量，通过调整低估率可以更准确地评估人群食盐摄入水平。
목적：비교칭중법、빈솔법여24 h뇨납법평고인군식염섭입량적차이화상관성。방법우2011년6—9월재산동성채용다계단분층수궤추양방법추취18～69세거민작위조사대상，공계2184명。분별채용24 h뇨납법、칭중법화빈솔법진행식염섭입량조사。동시기록3 d내가정용찬인원（포괄객인）적성별、년령、취찬정황、노동강도。채용문권조사개인선식습관。결과24 h뇨납법、칭중법화빈솔법조사적식염섭입량분별위14．0、12．0화10．5 g／d。여24 h뇨납법상비，칭중법화빈솔법매천식염평균섭입량분별저2．0 g화3．4 g，분별저고료14．3％화24．3％；이용칭중법화빈솔법저고화고고식염섭입량적개체비례분별위42．4％（856／2020）、55．3％（1117／2020）화20．7％（418／2020）、16．3％（329／2020），즉분별유36．9％（745／2020）화28．4％（574／2020）적개체기식염섭입량재24 h뇨납법결과적±25％이내。칭중법화빈솔법조사적식염섭입량균여24 h뇨납법정정상관（P＜0．01），상관계수분별위0．13화0．07。채용삼충방법조사적식염섭입량균수착조사대상자아감각함담구미적가중이축점증가。자인위구미편담、괄중화편함적삼조인군채용삼충방법조사적평균식염섭입량분별위：24 h뇨납법위13．6、13．6화14．7 g／d；칭중법위11．0、12．0화12．7g／d；빈솔법위9．3、10．2화11．9 g／d，차이균유통계학의의（24 h뇨납법：F＝0．47，P＜0．05；칭중법：F＝5．83， P＜0．05；빈솔법：F＝12．53，P＜0．01）。결론여24 h뇨납법상비，칭중법화빈솔법균저고료실제식염섭입량，통과조정저고솔가이경준학지평고인군식염섭입수평。
Objective To compare the difference and correlation between dietary salt intakes assessed by 24 hours urinary Na method, food weighted record method and food frequency questionnaire method.Methods All 2 184 subjects aged 18 to 69 were selected by multi stage stratified cluster random sampling method in Shandong province in June to September, 2011.Dietary salt intakes were measured by 24 hours urinary Na method, food weighted record method and food frequency questionnaire method.The information on gender, age, dining locations and labour intensity of members dining at home for 3 days were recorded.And the dietary habits were surveyed by questionnaire.Results Salt intakes were 14.0, 12.0 and 10.5 g/d assessed by 24 hours urinary Na method, food weighted record method and food frequency questionnaire, respectively.Comparing with 24 hours urinary Na method, salt intakes assessed by food weighted record method and food frequency questionnaire method were 2.0 g (14.3%undervalued) and 3.4 g (24.3%undervalued) less, respectively.Comparing with 24 hours urinary Na method, the proportion of individuals with salt intake over-reported and under-reported were 42.4%(856/2 020) and 55.3%(1 117/2 020) by food weighted record method, and were 20.7%(418/2 020) and 16.3%(329/2 020) by food frequency questionnaire method, respectively;the proportion of individuals with salt intakes within ±25%of 24 hours urinary Na method were 36.9% ( 745/2 020 ) and 28.4% ( 574/2 020 ) , respectively.Salt intakes assessed by 24 hours urinary method correlated significantly with both salt intakes assessed by food weighted record method and food frequency questionnaire method;the correlation coefficients were 0.13 and 0.07, respectively.With the increasing of salt intakes by subjects′self-judgment, salt intakes were all rising significantly using three survey methods.Salt intakes of three group population of light, moderate and partial taste salty were 13.6,13.6 and 14.7 g/d by 24 hours urinary Na method (F=0.47,P<0.05);11.0,12.0 and 12.7 g/d by food weighted record method (F=5.83,P<0.05), and 9.3,10.2 and 11.9 g/d by food frequency questionnaire method (F=5.83,P<0.05), respectively.Conclusion Comparing with 24 hours urinary method, food weighted record method and food frequency questionnaire method would undervalue dietary salt intake.Salt intake status can be more accurately assessed by adjusting the underestimation rate.