|
Messages of the Newly Proposed
Malaysian Dietary Guidelines (MDG): Do Adults in Kuala Lumpur Understand Them?
Norimah AK1, Hwong CS1, Liew
WC1,
Ruzita AT1, Siti Sa’adiah HN2 & Ismail MN1
1 Department of Nutrition and
Dietetics, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2 Institute for Behavioral Health,
Ministry of Health, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
The Malaysian Dietary Guidelines (MDG)
with eight key messages were first published in 1999. An updated version
consisting of 14 key messages is being developed. The objective of this study
was to evaluate the understanding of five key messages of the updated MDG among
adults aged 18-59 years in Kuala Lumpur. A total of 773 adults comprising 330
Malays, 364 Chinese and 79 Indians were included in the study. A
self-administrated questionnaire was used to obtain demographic data and to
determine the level of understanding of key words and messages to be included in
the new MDG. The results showed that 63% of the subjects were not aware of the
existence of the MDG published in 1999. Overall, the understanding of the five
messages in the updated MDG was moderate with a mean score of 60.0 ± 16.5.
Between 52% to 93% of the subjects did not understand such key words as serving
size, sedentary habits, blended vegetable oil and shortenings. The mean scores
of understanding were significantly higher (p< 0.05) among the Chinese
subjects (61.3 + 17.8) than Malays (58.6 + 14.2) and Indians (60.0 + 18.9). The
younger subjects (61.2 + 16.0) scored significantly (p< 0.05) higher
than the older (58.7 + 17.0) counterparts. There was also a significant
association between the level of understanding of MDG with education level (p<0.001)
and occupational status (p<0.001), respectively. This study suggests
that some key words and messages in the updated MDG should be simplified to
ensure that they are understood by Malaysians.
Keywords: Malaysian
Dietary Guideline, adults, messages, understanding
Download full article
|
|
 |
|
March 1995, Vol1 No.1
September 1995, Vol1 No.2
March 1996, Vol2 No.1
September 1996, Vol2 No.2
March 1997, Vol3 No.1
September 1997, Vol3 No.2
December 1998, Vol4 No.1&2
December 1999, Vol5 No.1&2
March 2000, Vol6 No.1
September 2000, Vol6 No.2
Mar/Sept 2001, Vol7 No.1&2
March 2002, Vol8, No.1
September 2002, Vol8, No.2
March 2003, Vol9 No.1
September 2003, Vol9 No.2
March 2004, Vol10 No.1
September 2004, Vol10 No. 2
2005, Vol 11 No.1
2005, Vo l11 No.2
2006, Vol 12 No.1
2006, Vol 12 No.2
2007, Vol 13 No.1
2007, Vol 13 No.2
March 2008, Vol 14 No.1
2008, Vol 14 No.2
2009, Vol 15 No.1
2009, Vol 15 No.2
2010, Vol 16(1)
2010, Vol 16(2)
2010, Vol 16(3)
2011, Vol 17(1)
2011, Vol 17(2)
2011, Vol 17(3)
|
|
|
|