Relative validity of interviewer-administered 24-hour recalls collected by telephone and in-person versus weighed food records among rural Sri Lankan adults

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key Points

The aim is to evaluate the validity and costs of phone and in-person 24-hour recalls against weighed food records among rural Sri Lankan adults.
Ran a randomized cross-over design to collect dietary data from 103 participants.
Matched phone and in-person 24-hour recalls to weighed food records collected on the same day.
Assessed agreement through equivalence testing and concordance correlation coefficients.
Used descriptive statistics for memory and portion size errors.
Calculated costs using activity-based costing methods.
Both phone and in-person 24-hour recalls underestimated energy intake, with phone recalls underreporting by 263 kcal and in-person by 229 kcal.
Protein and six micronutrients showed equivalent mean intakes between phone recalls and weighed food records.
In-person recalls had no equivalent nutrients while phone recalls showed relative equivalence for energy, carbohydrates, fat, zinc, and niacin.
Phone recalls had a slightly higher concordance correlation coefficient compared to in-person.
Phone recalls were less expensive ($186) compared to in-person recalls ($254) using a likely implementation scenario.

We only have this paper's title and publication details.

Assesses the validity and costs of phone versus in-person dietary recalls, suggesting potential benefits for rural populations.

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Joyce et al. (2026) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share