Retention Interval and Prompts: Creation and Cross-Sectional Pilot-Testing of Eight Interview Protocols to Obtain 24-Hour Dietary Recalls from Fourth-Grade Children.
Retention Interval and Prompts: Creation and Cross-Sectional Pilot-Testing of Eight Interview Protocols to Obtain 24-Hour Dietary Recalls from Fourth-Grade Children.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jand.2014.12.010
复制
发表时间：
2015-08
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Finney CJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baxter SD;Smith AF;Guinn CH;Hitchcock DB;Puryear MP;Vaadi KK;Finney CJ
任何24小时饮食回忆（24 hDR）都有保留间隔和提示。没有研究调查他们的综合影响。八个24 hDR协议，通过交叉两个保留间隔（下午获得的前24小时回忆;上午获得的前一天回忆）和四个提示（向前[距离到最近]，反向[最近到遥远]，餐名[早餐，午餐等]，开放[无说明]）进行了试点测试。通过横断面设计，儿童被采访一次，使用八个24小时DR协议之一。2011年春季，从两所学校随机选择了48名四年级儿童（79%为黑人; 50%为女孩;每个方案6名）。方案分配是随机的。由于方案偏离，分析排除了一次访谈。进行了多变量方差分析（ANOVA）与四个非准确性相关的响应变量，自变量保留间隔，提示，以及它们的相互作用。由于研究的探索性，显著性水平为0.10。反应变量集在保持间隔（P=0.0003）和提示（P=0.045）之间存在差异，但它们之间的相互作用（P=0.11）无差异。四个变量中的每一个的随访方差分析显示，三个变量的保留间隔和两个变量的提示存在差异：访谈时间（分钟）因保留间隔（前24小时-下午=21.8，前一天-上午=16.1; P<0.0008）和提示（开放=20.3，反向=20.0，正向=19.1，餐名=16.3; P=0.079）而不同。报告在目标期间吃的学校餐的数量不依赖于保留时间间隔或提示，但使用餐名提示（1.7）比其他三个提示（1.3; P=0.055;对比t检验）。据报告，在学校用餐时吃的10种可能的膳食成分的数量因保留时间而异（前24小时-下午=4.1，前一天-上午=2.9; P=0.048）。报告的在学校用餐时食用的加权项目数（调味品=0.33，组合主菜=2.0，其他=1.0）因保留间隔（前24小时-下午=5.8，前一天-上午=4.1; P=0.079）和提示（向前=6.2，餐名=5.3，反向=4.9，开放=3.3; P=0.093）而不同。儿童的非准确性相关的反应，8个24 hDR协议的变化，假设。选定的协议将是有用的，在一个计划的验证研究，以调查儿童的回忆准确性协议的差异。
Any 24-hour dietary recall (24hDR) has a retention interval and prompts. No research has investigated their combined effect. Eight 24hDR protocols, constructed by crossing two retention intervals (prior-24-hour recall obtained in afternoon; previous-day recall obtained in morning) with four prompts (forward [distant-to-recent], reverse [recent-to-distant], meal-name [breakfast, lunch, etc.], open [no instructions]), were pilot-tested. Via a cross-sectional design, children were interviewed once, using one of eight 24hDR protocols. Forty-eight fourth-grade children (79% Black; 50% girls; six per protocol) were randomly selected from two schools in Spring, 2011. Protocol assignment was random. Analyses excluded one interview due to protocol deviation. Multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with four non-accuracy-related response variables was conducted, with independent variables retention interval, prompt, and their interaction. The significance level was 0.10 due to the study’s exploratory nature. The response variable set differed across retention intervals (P=0.0003) and prompts (P=0.045) but not their interaction (P=0.11). Follow-up ANOVA for each of four variables showed differences by retention interval for three and prompt for two: Interview length (minutes) differed by retention interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=21.8, previous-day-morning=16.1; P<0.0008) and prompt (open=20.3, reverse=20.0, forward=19.1, meal-name=16.3; P=0.079). Number of school meals reported eaten during the target period did not depend on retention interval or prompt, but was greater using meal-name prompts (1.7) than the other three prompts (1.3; P=0.055; contrast t-test). Number of 10 possible meal components reported eaten at school meals differed by retention interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=4.1, previous-day-morning=2.9; P=0.048). Weighted number of items (condiment=0.33, combination entrée=2.0, else=1.0) reported eaten at school meals differed by retention interval (prior-24-hour-afternoon=5.8, previous-day-morning=4.1; P=0.079) and prompt (forward=6.2, meal-name=5.3, reverse=4.9, open=3.3; P=0.093). Children’s non-accuracy-related responses to eight 24hDR protocols varied as hypothesized. The selected protocols will be useful in a planned validation study to investigate differences by protocol in children’s recall accuracy.