Search

Effects of caffeine on women's health are inconclusive, in part because of inadequate exposure assessment. In this study we determined 1) validity of a food frequency questionnaire compared with multiple 24-hour dietary recalls (24HDRs) for measuring monthly caffeine and caffeinated beverage intakes; and 2) validity of the 24HDR compared with the prior day's diary record for measuring daily caffeinated coffee intake. BioCycle Study (2005–2007) participants, women (n = 259) aged 18–44 years from western New York State, were followed for 2 menstrual cycles. Participants completed a food frequency questionnaire at the end of each cycle, four 24HDRs per cycle, and daily diaries. Caffeine intakes reported for the food frequency questionnaires were greater than those reported for the 24HDRs (mean = 114.1 vs. 92.6mg/day, P = 0.01) but showed high correlation (r = 0.73, P < 0.001) and moderate agreement (К = 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.43, 0.57). Women reported less caffeinated coffee intake in their 24HDRs compared with their corresponding diary days (mean = 0.51 vs. 0.80 cups/day, P < 0.001) (1 cup = 237 mL). Although caffeine and coffee exposures were highly correlated, absolute intakes differed significantly between measurement tools. These results highlight the importance of considering potential misclassification of caffeine exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Objective: Patient reporting of symptoms in a questionnaire with a 7-day recall period was expected to differ from symptom reporting in a 7-day symptom diary on the basis of cognitive theory of memory processes and several studies of symptoms and health behaviors. Methods: A total of 101 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) completed a daily diary of items measuring symptoms and impacts of COPD for 7 days, and on the seventh day they completed a questionnaire of the same items with a 7-day recall period. The analysis examined concordance of 7-day recall with summary descriptors of the daily responses, examined the magnitude and covariates (patient characteristics and response patterns) of the difference between 7-day recall and mean of daily responses, and compared the discriminant ability and ability to detect change of 7-day recall and mean of daily responses. Results: A 7-day recall was moderately concordant with the mean and maximum of daily responses and was 0.34 to 0.50 SDs higher than the mean of daily responses. Only the weekly report itself was a covariate of the difference. The discriminant ability and ability to detect change were equivalent. Conclusions: In measuring the weeklong experience of COPD symptoms and impacts on groups of patients, the 7-day recall scores were higher than the daily diary scores, but equivalent in detecting change over time. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

To date, Web-based 24-hour recalls have not been validated using objective biomarkers. From 2006 to 2009, the validity of 6 Web-based DietDay 24-hour recalls was tested among 115 black and 118 white healthy adults from Los Angeles, California, by using the doubly labeled water method, and the results were compared with the results of the Diet History Questionnaire, a food frequency questionnaire developed by the National Cancer Institute. The authors performed repeated measurements in a subset of 53 subjects approximately 6 months later to estimate the stability of the doubly labeled water measurement. The attenuation factors for the DietDay recall were 0.30 for blacks and 0.26 for whites. For the Diet History Questionnaire, the attenuation factors were 0.15 and 0.17 for blacks and whites, respectively. Adjusted correlations between true energy intake and the recalls were 0.50 and 0.47 for blacks and whites, respectively, for the DietDay recall. For the Diet History Questionnaire, they were 0.34 and 0.36 for blacks and whites, respectively. The rate of underreporting of more than 30% of calories was lower with the recalls than with the questionnaire (25% and 41% vs. 34% and 52% for blacks and whites, respectively). These findings suggest that Web-based DietDay dietary recalls offer an inexpensive and widely accessible dietary assessment alternative, the validity of which is equally strong among black and white adults. The validity of the Web-administered recall was superior to that of the paper food frequency questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose: Patient reporting of type 2 diabetes symptoms in a questionnaire with a 7-day recall period was expected to be different from symptom reports using a 7-day diary with repeated 24-h recall based on cognitive theory of memory processes and prior literature. This study compared these two types of recall in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: One hundred and forty adults with T2D completed a daily diary for 7 days containing 9 T2D-related symptom and impact items. On day 7, patients completed the same items with a 7-day recall period. We examined the concordance of 7-day recall with summary descriptors of the daily reports and compared the scores and the discriminant ability of 7-day recall and mean of daily reports. Results: Seven-day recall was most concordant with the mean of daily reports. The average difference in scores was small (range 0.22-0.77 on 11-point scale) and less than 0.5 standard deviations. For some items, the difference was positively associated with the variation in daily reports. The discriminant ability was comparable. Conclusions: In this study population, a questionnaire with 7-day recall provided information consistent with a daily diary measure of the average week-long experience of T2D symptoms and impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies have evaluated the validity of adolescent diet recall after many decades. Between 1943 and 1970, yearly diet records were completed by parents of adolescents participating in an ongoing US study. In 2005–2006, study participants who had been 13–18 years of age when the diet records were collected were asked to complete a food frequency questionnaire regarding their adolescent diet. Food frequency questionnaires and diet records were available for 72 participants. The authors calculated Spearman correlation coefficients between food, food group, and nutrient intakes from the diet records and food frequency questionnaire and deattenuated them to account for the effects of within-person variation measured in the diet records on the association. The median deattenuated correlation for foods was 0.30, ranging from −0.53 for a beef, pork, or lamb sandwich to 0.99 for diet soda. The median deattenuated correlation for food groups was 0.31 (range: −0.48 for breads to 0.70 for hot beverages); for nutrient intakes, it was 0.25 (range: −0.08 for iron to 0.82 for vitamin B12). Some dietary factors were reasonably recalled 3–6 decades later. However, this food frequency questionnaire did not validly measure overall adolescent diet when completed by middle-aged and older adults on average 48 years after adolescence. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Epidemiologic research shows that pets influence human health, demonstrating both protective and deleterious health risks; therefore, valid definitions of pet exposure would enhance research. The authors determined how well young adults aged 18 years report their early childhood pets. Subjects in an established birth cohort from Detroit, Michigan, born in 1987–1989 (n = 820) were asked a series of questions about pets in the home during their first 6 years of life. Pet recall was compared with annual prospectively collected parental report from 12–18 years prior. Exposure to cats was correctly reported on average 86.3% of the time (95% confidence interval: 85.0, 87.5) and dogs 79.2% (95% confidence interval: 77.7, 80.6) of the time (P < 0.01). Cats and dogs were more likely to be underreported than overreported, from as few as 1.8-fold to as many as 8.3-fold (P < 0.05). Reporting differed by sex of the respondent and current pet ownership. No differences were found in reporting by those who experienced allergy symptoms near dogs or cats. Findings suggest good reliability of young adult pet reporting for ages 0–6 years but that childhood pet exposure may need to be assessed separately depending on the participant's sex and the outcome of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Self-reported perinatal exposures to chemicals or pollutant sources in case–control studies of birth defects may be inaccurate due to misreporting among mothers. In a case–control study of neural tube defects delivered in California in 1987–1988, mothers of case and control infants were asked whether they lived within 0.25 mile (400 m) of agricultural crops. Responses were compared against a gold standard derived from historical agricultural land-use survey maps. The odds ratio for self-reported proximity to any crops (1.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 2.43) appeared to be positively biased compared with the estimate for map-based proximity (1.17, 95% confidence interval: 0.79, 1.71). This pattern was also observed for proximity to specific crops such as nonpermanent and orchard crops. For vineyards, however, we observed an increased risk associated with map-based proximity (odds ratio=2.45, 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 5.58) but not with self-reported proximity (1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.51, 2.34). The sensitivity of self-reported proximity to any crops was greater for case (65.7%) than control mothers (50.0%) while specificity was about the same for case and control mothers (87.5 vs. 89.3%), suggesting that control mothers under-reported proximity to crops. Differential reporting was also observed between geographic regions, urban and rural residents, and across levels of maternal employment and education. These results suggest differential reporting between case and control mothers as well as an influence from maternal demographic characteristics on reporting accuracy.Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2006) 16, 147–155. doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500444; published online 27 July 2005 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health departments routinely investigate cases of gastroenteritis through interviews to determine the source of infection. However, validation studies of dietary questionnaires typically focus on quantities consumed and don't assess questions designed to identify sources of foodborne illness. We aimed to assess the accuracy and reliability of information collected by surveys of food history recall for gastroenteritis investigations. A questionnaire was developed to investigate the sources of foodborne gastroenteritis in Australia, with questions on food exposures selected for validation. Fifty-five participants photographed all foods consumed and food receipts obtained during a seven-day observation period. These photographs were uploaded to an online survey or emailed to the researcher. Participants were contacted 14 days later for a telephone interview about foods consumed in the seven-day period. Questionnaire responses were compared to uploaded photographs. Kappa statistics (κ) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Sixty-two questions were assessed, including those targeting foods considered high-risk for foodborne gastroenteritis. Potential risk factors covered by these questions included: meats (poultry, beef, pork, and deli meats), the state of poultry purchased (raw versus precooked), and the number of meals eaten outside of the home. Several questions targeting high-risk foods were found to have substantial-to-almost perfect agreement (κ ≥ 0.610) between what was eaten and what was reported by participants, with most questions showing at least a moderate level of agreement (κ = 0.410–0.600). Questions regarding exposure to different types of meat showed a high level of consistency. The only question with poor participant recall (κ < 0.000) was that relating to consumption of undercooked beef or veal. Several questions designed for investigation of gastroenteritis were found to provide at least a moderate level of accurate and reliable recall, even after a delay until interview. These questions are suitable for investigating sources of foodborne gastroenteritis. • Recall of exposure to high-risk foods was assessed. • Most questions showed at least a moderate level of agreement. • Dining locations were assessed as having consistently high recall. • Questions that quantified consumption in number of days had poorer validity. • Questions and results can inform surveys for investigation of gastroenteritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Data about maternal recall accuracy for classifying early pregnancy medication exposure are meager. Nonetheless, studies often rely on recall to evaluate potential impact of pharmaceuticals on the developing fetus.Methods: Right from the Start is a community-based pregnancy cohort that enrolled women from North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. A subset of 318 women participated in daily medication diaries initiated before conception (2006-2012). We examined nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as an example of a drug type that is difficult to study due to its intermittent and primarily over-the-counter use as well as its incomplete documentation in medical and pharmaceutical records. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) were assessed as a prescription medication comparator. Maternal recall of NSAID and SSRI use in early pregnancy was examined by comparing diary data (gold standard) to first-trimester interview.Results: Sensitivity and specificity for recall of NSAID exposure were 78.6% and 62.3%, respectively (kappa statistic: 0.41), with 72.3% agreement for exposure classification. Sensitivity and specificity for recall of SSRI exposure were 77.8% and 99.0%, respectively (kappa statistic: 0.79), with 97.8% agreement.Conclusions: Our findings suggest the validity of maternal recall varies with medication type and prospective data collection should be prioritized when studying early pregnancy drug exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]