Comparing Reported Dietary Supplement Intakes between Two 24-Hour Recall Methods: The Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Dietary Assessment Tool and the Interview-Administered Automated Multiple Pass Method.

BACKGROUND: The Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24) includes a highly standardized multipass web-based recall that, like the Automated Multiple Pass Method (AMPM), captures detailed information about dietary intake using multiple probes and reminders to enhance recall of intakes. The primary distinction between ASA24 and AMPM is that the ASA24 user interface guides participants, thus removing the need for interviewers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare dietary supplement use reported on self-administered (ASA24-2011) vs interviewer-administered (AMPM) 24-hour recalls. DESIGN: The Food Reporting Comparison Study was an evaluation study designed to compare self-reported intakes captured using the self-administered ASA24 vs data collected via interviewer-administered AMPM recalls. Between 2010 and 2011, 1081 women and men were enrolled from three integrated health care systems that belong to the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Research Network: Security Health Plan Marshfield Clinic, Wisconsin; Henry Ford Health System, Michigan; and Kaiser Permanente Northern California, California. Quota sampling was used to ensure a balance of age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Participants were randomly assigned to four groups, and each group was asked to complete two dietary recalls: group 1, two ASA24s; group 2, two AMPMs; group 3, ASA24 first and AMPM second; and group 4, AMPM first and ASA24 second. Dietary supplements were coded using the 2007-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Dietary Supplement Database. Analyses used the two one-sided tests, known as TOST, to assess equivalence of reported supplement use between methods. RESULTS: Complete 24-hour dietary recalls that included both dietary and supplement intake data were available for 1076 participants (507 men and 569 women). The proportions reporting supplement use via ASA24 and AMPM were 46% and 43%, respectively. These proportions were equivalent, with a small effect size of less than 20%. There were two exceptions in subgroup analyses: reported use among those 40 to 59 years of age and reported use by non-Hispanic black subjects were higher for ASA24 than AMPM. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that there is little difference in reported supplement use by mode of administration (ie, interview-administered vs self-administered recall).

Comparison of recruitment and retention among demographic subgroups in a large diverse population study of diet.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the feasibility of conducting a longitudinal study of diet among diverse populations by comparing rates of response throughout recruitment and retention phases by demographic and other characteristics. METHODS: Using quota sampling, participants were recruited from 3 geographically and demographically diverse integrated health systems in the United States. Overall, 12,860 adults, ages 20-70, were invited to participate via mail. Participation first required accessing the study's website and later meeting eligibility criteria via telephone interview. Enrollees were asked to provide two 24-hour dietary recalls, either interviewer-administered or self-administered on the web, over 6 weeks. Stepped monetary incentives were provided. RESULTS: Rates for accessing the study website ranged from 6% to 23% (9% overall) across sites. Site differences may reflect differences in recruitment strategy or target samples. Of those accessing the website, enrollment was high (≥ 87%). Of the 1185 enrollees, 42% were non-Hispanic white, 34% were non-Hispanic black, and 24% were Hispanic. Men and minorities had lower enrollment rates than women and non-Hispanic whites, partially due to less successful telephone contact for eligibility screening. Once enrolled, 90% provided 1 recall and 80% provided both. Women had higher retention rates than men, as did older compared to younger participants. Retention rates were similar across race/ethnicity groups. CONCLUSIONS: While study recruitment remains challenging, once recruited most participants, regardless of race/ethnicity, completed two 24-hour dietary recalls, both interviewer-administered and self-administered on the web. This study demonstrates the feasibility of collecting multiple 24-hour recalls including less expensive automated self-administered recalls among diverse populations.

Comparison of Interviewer-Administered and Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Dietary Recalls in 3 Diverse Integrated Health Systems.

Twenty-four-hour dietary recalls provide high-quality intake data but have been prohibitively expensive for large epidemiologic studies. This study's goal was to assess whether the web-based Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Recall (ASA24) performs similarly enough to the standard interviewer-administered, Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM) 24-hour dietary recall to be considered a viable alternative. In 2010-2011, 1,081 adults from 3 integrated health systems in Detroit, Michigan; Marshfield, Wisconsin; and Kaiser-Permanente Northern California participated in a field trial. A quota design ensured a diverse sample by sex, age, and race/ethnicity. Each participant was asked to complete 2 recalls and was randomly assigned to 1 of 4 protocols differing by type of recall and administration order. For energy, the mean intakes were 2,425 versus 2,374 kcal for men and 1,876 versus 1,906 kcal for women by AMPM and ASA24, respectively. Of 20 nutrients/food groups analyzed and controlling for false discovery rate, 87% were judged equivalent at the 20% bound. ASA24 was preferred over AMPM by 70% of the respondents. Attrition was lower in the ASA24/AMPM study group than in the AMPM/ASA24 group, and it was lower in the ASA24/ASA24 group than in the AMPM/AMPM group. ASA24 offers the potential to collect high-quality dietary intake information at low cost with less attrition.