Search

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]

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]