Search

Introduction: Two studies were conducted to evaluate the National Cancer Institute (NCI)'s web-based Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Recall (ASA24) system, which was developed to facilitate the collection of 24-hour dietary recalls in largescale research. Hypothesis: Energy, nutrient and food group estimates, response rates, and preferences are comparable between ASA24 and USDA's interviewer-administered Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM). Methods: Study 1 assessed the response rates and data collected using ASA24 compared to AMPM. About 1200 participants were recruited from three integrated health systems using quota sampling to ensure representation of a range of ages and race/ethnicity groups. Participants were asked to complete two 24HRs, 4-7 weeks apart, and randomized into four study groups: 1) two ASA24s; 2) two AMPMs; 3) ASA24 first and AMPM second; and 4) AMPM first and ASA24 second. Study 2 assessed the validity of ASA24 compared to AMPM in a one-day feeding study. Eighty-one participants visited a study center to consume three meals from a buffet. All containers were unobtrusively weighed before and after each participant served him/herself; plate waste was also weighed. The next day, participants returned to the center to complete either ASA24 or AMPM. Results: Study 1: Almost all enrolled participants (95%) completed at least one recall and 80% completed two; response rates did not differ by recall mode. Estimated intakes of energy, nutrients and food groups were comparable for ASA24 and AMPM; for example, energy, 2132 vs. 2126 kcal; fat, 84.9 vs. 82.8 g; saturated fatty acids, 27.9 vs. 26.9 g; fiber, 18.4 vs. 18.4 g; and fruits and vegetables, 3.0 vs. 3.1 cup equivalents. Of participants randomized to complete one ASA24 and one AMPM, a greater percentage preferred ASA24. Study 2: The examination of foods and drinks reported showed that exact or close matches were recalled for 76.9% of items truly consumed among ASA24 respondents compared to 82.5% among AMPM respondents. Far matches were reported for 3.1% of items consumed among ASA24 respondents compared to 0.7% for AMPM. The proportions of foods or drinks consumed but not reported (exclusions) were 20.4% and 16.8% for ASA24 and AMPM, respectively. Median differences between reported and true intakes for energy, nutrient and most food groups were not significantly different between ASA24 and AMPM. Conclusion: ASA24 performs well relative to traditional interviewer-administered recalls and is feasible for use in large-scale research. The tool, which offers significant savings over interviewer-administered recalls, is publicly available from NCI and has been used in over 800 studies to collect over 113,000 dietary recalls. The tool is currently being updated to run on mobile applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]