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).

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes