Traci A Bekelman1, Susan L Johnson2, Rachel I Steinberg3, Corby K Martin4, Katherine A Sauder5, Sophie Luckett-Cole6, Deborah H Glueck7, Daniel S Hsia8, Dana Dabelea5. 1. Lifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes Center, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: Traci.Bekelman@cuanschutz.edu. 2. Section of Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz. 3. Lifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes Center, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. 4. Ingestive Behavior, Weight Management & Health Promotion Laboratory, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Human Phenotyping Core, Nutrition Obesity Research Center, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 5. Lifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes Center, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado; Section of Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz. 6. Lifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes Center, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. 7. Lifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes Center, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado; Section of Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz. 8. Ingestive Behavior, Weight Management & Health Promotion Laboratory, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accuracy and participant burden are two key considerations in the selection of a dietary assessment tool for assessing children's full-day dietary intake. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify barriers experienced by parents and burden when using two technology-based measures of dietary intake to report their child's intake: the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) and the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24). DESIGN: Qualitative, semistructured, focus groups were conducted with parents who served as proxy reporters of their child's dietary intake using the two different dietary assessment methods (ie, RFPM and ASA24) 1 week apart. PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: This study was conducted in 2019 and included 32 parents of children aged 7 to 8 years in Colorado and Louisiana. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers adhering to the protocol and burden with the RFPM and ASA24. QUALITATIVE ANALYSES: Qualitative content analysis and Atlas.ti software were used to analyze and interpret focus group data. RESULTS: For the RFPM, parents described missing photos due to unobserved intake, forgetting to capture images, disruption of mealtimes, and child embarrassment when meals were photographed at school. For the ASA24, parents described the time commitment as the main source of burden and the need to expand the food database to include additional ethnic foods and restaurant items. The main strengths were ease of use for the RFPM and the consolidated workload for the ASA24. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers experienced by parents and burden differed by method, highlighting the importance of considering the unique characteristics of each assessment tool when designing a pediatric dietary assessment study and interpreting findings.
BACKGROUND: Accuracy and participant burden are two key considerations in the selection of a dietary assessment tool for assessing children's full-day dietary intake. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify barriers experienced by parents and burden when using two technology-based measures of dietary intake to report their child's intake: the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) and the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24). DESIGN: Qualitative, semistructured, focus groups were conducted with parents who served as proxy reporters of their child's dietary intake using the two different dietary assessment methods (ie, RFPM and ASA24) 1 week apart. PARTICIPANTS/ SETTING: This study was conducted in 2019 and included 32 parents of children aged 7 to 8 years in Colorado and Louisiana. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers adhering to the protocol and burden with the RFPM and ASA24. QUALITATIVE ANALYSES: Qualitative content analysis and Atlas.ti software were used to analyze and interpret focus group data. RESULTS: For the RFPM, parents described missing photos due to unobserved intake, forgetting to capture images, disruption of mealtimes, and child embarrassment when meals were photographed at school. For the ASA24, parents described the time commitment as the main source of burden and the need to expand the food database to include additional ethnic foods and restaurant items. The main strengths were ease of use for the RFPM and the consolidated workload for the ASA24. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers experienced by parents and burden differed by method, highlighting the importance of considering the unique characteristics of each assessment tool when designing a pediatric dietary assessment study and interpreting findings.
Authors: Corby K Martin; John B Correa; Hongmei Han; H Raymond Allen; Jennifer C Rood; Catherine M Champagne; Bahadir K Gunturk; George A Bray Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Traci A Bekelman; Laura L Bellows; Morgan L McCloskey; Corby K Martin; Susan L Johnson Journal: Pediatr Obes Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Jill J Francis; Marie Johnston; Clare Robertson; Liz Glidewell; Vikki Entwistle; Martin P Eccles; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: Psychol Health Date: 2010-12
Authors: Jennifer H Lingler; Karen L Schmidt; Amanda L Gentry; Lu Hu; Lauren A Terhorst Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 1.742