ArticleBMJ public health2026
Cross-sectional comparisons of different approaches to measuring composite health scores in rural US adults: the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) 2018 Cancer Prevention Recommendations Adherence Score.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Composite health scores are useful in public health research, but components must be operationalised to be feasible in community settings. This paper compared multiple methods to calculate the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) 2018 Cancer Prevention Recommendations Adherence Score, which scores recommendations to: (1) be a healthy weight; (2) be physically active (PA); (3) eat whole grains, fruit and vegetables (FV) and beans; (4) limit fast/processed foods; (5) limit red/processed meat; (6) limit sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and (7) limit alcohol. Methods: We conducted cross-sectional comparisons of validated surveys and alternate measurements (pedometer readings, 24-hour diet recall) for 181 US adults. Across measurement approaches, we calculated percentage agreement and linear weighted kappa statistics for component classifications, and compared composite scores using Spearman's rank-order correlations (r Results: Survey and alternate measures had slight agreement for adherence scoring of FV and alcohol (p<0.001), red/processed meat and fast/processed foods (p<0.01) and fibre and PA (p<0.05), and no agreement for SSBs. WCRF/AICR composite scores using alternate measures were moderately or strongly correlated (r Conclusions: In this sample, measurement approach influenced WCRF/AICR component adherence classifications substantially and composite scores somewhat. Self-reported data are a cornerstone of community-based research, but unequal units and reference periods and biases in self-reported data all likely contributed to observed discordance in component adherence and composite scores. Future research is needed to identify feasible and accurate approaches to collecting data for composite health metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.