| Literature DB >> 24949548 |
Navnit Kaur Grewal1, Annhild Mosdøl2, Marte Bergsund Aunan3, Carina Monsen4, Liv Elin Torheim5.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop, test, and evaluate a 24-h recall procedure to assess the dietary intake of toddlers of Somali- and Iraqi-born mothers living in Norway. A protocol for a 24-h multiple-pass recall procedure, registration forms, and visual tools (a picture library for food identification and portion size estimation) was developed and tested in 12 mothers from Somalia and Iraq with children aged 10-21 months. Five female field workers were recruited and trained to conduct the interviews. Evaluation data for the 24-h recall procedure were collected from both the mothers and the field workers. Nutrient intake was calculated using a Norwegian dietary calculation system. Each child's estimated energy intake was compared with its estimated energy requirement. Both the mothers and the field workers found the method feasible and the visual tools useful. The estimated energy intake corresponded well with the estimated energy requirement for most of the children (within mean ± 2 SD, except for three). The pilot study identified the need for additional foods in the picture library and some crucial aspects in training and supervising the field workers to reduce sources of error in the data collection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24949548 PMCID: PMC4073154 DOI: 10.3390/nu6062333
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Number of pictures in each folder of the picture library.
| Food Folder | Number of Pictures |
|---|---|
| Baby cereals | 16 |
| Snacks | 33 |
| Infant formula | 16 |
| Ready-made meals | 10 |
| Bread spreads | 19 |
| Dinner | 39 |
| Yoghurt and desserts | 29 |
| Oils and butter | 13 |
| Dairy products | 13 |
| Fruits and vegetables | 50 |
| Breads | 22 |
| Pasta, rice and beans | 17 |
| Supplements | 8 |
| Milk | 38 |
| Juice and nectar | 46 |
| Soda | 4 |
| Squash, lemonade, | 17 |
| Meat | 4 |
| Biscuits | 11 |
Evaluation form for the pilot study.
| Source of Information | Evaluation Topic | Question Asked |
|---|---|---|
| Observation by researchers | Time spent by the field worker | Time spent on picture library (iPad)? |
| Use of visual tools | Which pictures were used most frequently or not at all? | |
| Standardisation of methods/field workers | Did the field workers ask the questions in the same way? | |
| Questions to respondents | Clarity of questions | Were any of the questions difficult to answer/unclear? If yes, which and why? |
| Missing pictures | Did you miss pictures of any foods/beverages? | |
| Portion sizes | Did the portion sizes in the booklet match the portion sizes your child usually eats? | |
| Questions to field workers | 24-h recall protocol | Was the protocol easy to understand? If no, why not? |
| Picture library | How did you experience using the picture library during the interview? Was it user friendly? If no, why not? | |
| Photographic booklet | How did you experience using the photographic booklet to estimate portion sizes? | |
| Measuring equipment | How did you experience to estimate amounts using the measuring equipment? | |
| Registration form for 24-h recall | How did you experience using the form? |
Estimated energy requirements and energy intake among children (10–21 months) with mothers from Iraq (ID 1–5) and Somalia (ID 6–12) living in Norway.
| ID | Sex | Estimated Average Daily Energy Requirements (kJ/kg) | Body Weight at 12 Months (g) | Age at Time of Interview (months) | Estimated Body Weight at Time of Interview (g) a | EER at Time of Interview (kJ/day) b | EEI at Time of Interview (kJ/day) c | Percentage Differences between EER and EEI (%) d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | 333 | 8440 | 14 | 8855 | 2949 | 2843 | −4 | |
| M | 337 | 11,600 | 13 | 11,864 | 3998 | 3486 | −14 | |
| M | 337 | 11,083 | 21 | 13,268 | 4471 | 3649 | −20 | |
| F | 333 | 8719 e | 11 | 8719 | 2903 | 4415 | 41 | |
| M | 337 | 8300 | 12 | 8300 | 2797 | 3102 | 10 | |
| F | 333 | 10,000 | 13 | 10,246 | 3412 | 4043 | 17 | |
| M | 337 | 8200 | 12 | 8200 | 2763 | 2764 | 0 | |
| F | 333 | 9970 | 14 | 10,460 | 3483 | 3157 | −10 | |
| M | 337 | 10,000 | 14 | 10,466 | 3527 | 2232 | −45 | |
| M | 337 | 11,000 | 14 | 11,513 | 3880 | 4635 | 18 | |
| M | 337 | 9890 f | 10 | 10,509 | 3542 | 3556 | 0 | |
| F | 333 | 9270 | 13 | 9498 | 3163 | 4636 | 38 | |
a Estimated body weight at time of interview calculated based on average growth rate from World Health Organization’s growth standards [19] multiplied by number of months between time of weighing and time of interview; b Estimated body weight at time of interview multiplied with estimated average requirement per kilogram; c Mean estimated energy intake of the two recalls; d Calculated as percent difference of mean. Difference between EER and EEI tested with paired samples t-test: p = 0.58; e Body weight not registered. Average weight for girls at 11 months of age used as reference [19]; f Body weight at 8 months of age; g Calculated using absolute values of percentage differences
Figure 1The difference between estimated energy requirement (EER) and estimated energy intake (EEI), plotted against the mean of EER and EEI (n = 12). SD = Standard deviation.