Validity of Food Consumption Histories in a Foodborne Outbreak Investigation

Decker, Michael D.; Booth, Anita L.; Dewey, Mary Jane; Fricker, Raffael; Hutcheson, Robert H.; Schaffner, William

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114464

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that the proportion of false-negative recalls is higher than false-positive, indicating that forgetting to report consumed foods is more likely than reporting food-items actually not consumed. Higher specificity and lower sensitivity of recall were reported before in a similar experiment [12]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…This is supported by our findings suggesting better recall of main courses compared to all other dishes, particularly compared to unvarying daily offerings like fruit salad and bakery. Contrarily to Decker et al, we did not find indication of significant misclassification of desserts [12]. However, better recall of main courses needs to be taken into account when evaluating explorative findings, to avoid missing vehicles in side dishes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…The investigators videotaped 32 attendees at the buffet table and interviewed them afterwards concerning their food selection. Consumers failed more often to report selection of desserts and bread compared to other servings, but influence of recall period could not be studied [12]. Similarly, Mann et al observed attendees of a luncheon documenting their selection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessment of recall error in self-reported food consumption histories among adults—Particularly delay of interviews decrease completeness of food histories—Germany, 2013

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPoor recall during investigations of foodborne outbreaks may lead to misclassifications in exposure ascertainment. We conducted a simulation study to assess the frequency and determinants of recall errors.MethodsLunch visitors in a cafeteria using exclusively cashless payment reported their consumption of 13 food servings available daily in the three preceding weeks using a self-administered paper-questionnaire. We validated this information using electronic payment information. We calculated associated factors on misclassification of recall according to time, age, sex, education level, dietary habits and type of servings.ResultsWe included 145/226 (64%) respondents who reported 27,095 consumed food items. Sensitivity of recall was 73%, specificity 96%. In multivariable analysis, for each additional day of recall period, the adjusted chance for false-negative recall increased by 8% (OR: 1.1;95%-CI: 1.06, 1.1), for false-positive recall by 3% (OR: 1.03;95%-CI: 1.02, 1.05), for indecisive recall by 12% (OR: 1.1;95%-CI: 1.08, 1.15). Sex and education-level had minor effects.DiscussionForgetting to report consumed foods is more frequent than reporting food-items actually not consumed. Bad recall is strongly enhanced by delay of interviews and may make hypothesis generation and testing very challenging. Side dishes are more easily missed than main courses. If available, electronic payment data can improve food-history information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of recall error in self-reported food consumption histories among adults—Particularly delay of interviews decrease completeness of food histories—Germany, 2013

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one study food consumption recalled by people 2-3 days after luncheon was compared with that observed at the time and recorded on video tape. 9 Only four of 32 attendees made no errors in reporting. The sensitivity of the food consumption histories questionnaire was 87.6% and the specificity 96.1 %.…”

Section: Measurement Biasmentioning

confidence: 94%

Nordic Workshop addressing case-control studies and food borne infections

2004

TemaNord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In one study food consumption recalled by people 2-3 313 days after luncheon was compared with that observed at the time and recorded on video tape. 23 Only four of 32 attendees made no errors in reporting. The sensitivity of the food consumption histories questionnaire was 87.6% and the specificity 96.1%.…”

Section: Measurement Biasesmentioning

confidence: 94%

Epidemiology in search of infectious diseases: methods in outbreak investigation.

Palmer¹

1989

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validity of Food Consumption Histories in a Foodborne Outbreak Investigation

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Assessment of recall error in self-reported food consumption histories among adults—Particularly delay of interviews decrease completeness of food histories—Germany, 2013

Assessment of recall error in self-reported food consumption histories among adults—Particularly delay of interviews decrease completeness of food histories—Germany, 2013

Nordic Workshop addressing case-control studies and food borne infections

Epidemiology in search of infectious diseases: methods in outbreak investigation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About