ECHO Research Compares Burden of Parent-Reported Child Diet Assessments

<< Back to Research Summaries

ECHO Research Compares Burden of Parent-Reported Child Diet Assessments

A child’s diet can be an important factor in their overall health, and many ECHO studies investigate what children eat since it relates to different health outcomes. Often, caregivers describe what their child ate of the previous day or week with a questionnaire. These questionnaires rely on parents to remember and estimate when and how much their child ate, which can result in errors. Additionally, it can be hard for parents to accurately report meals and snacks their child ate during school hours because they are not there to observe. More research was needed to better understand barriers to reporting a child’s diet, difficulties with using different reporting tools, and the accuracy and effectiveness of such tools.

Below you will find information on two studies that help answer questions on this topic.

How Can Parents Accurately and Reliably Report on their Child’s Diet?

Author(s): Traci Bekelman, Dana Dabelea, et al.  

 

Who sponsored this study?

This research was supported by the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, the Office of the Director, and the National Institutes of Health.

 

What were the study results?

Parents reported that the strengths of the RFPM included that the RFPM was easy to use and liked that they were not responsible for determining portion sizes. Some of the barriers of RFPM were parents missing photos when they could not see their child’s meal, parents forgetting to take photos, interrupting the child’s eating time, and the child feeling embarrassed to have their meal photographed at school. Parents reported that the strengths of the ASA24 included the ability for them to enter all of the data at once in a single system. Some of the burdens of the ASA24 included the amount of time that parents had to enter information each day and some meal items missing from the website’s database.

Footnote: Results reported here are for a single study. Other or future studies may provide new information or different results. You should not make changes to your health without first consulting your healthcare professional.

 

What was the study's impact?

This study provided information on the how useful these parent-report tools are for easy and accurate reporting of child diet. Additionally, parents shared some of troubles that may prevent them from accurately recording their child’s meals. These results can also help researchers determine the helpful features and less helpful features of each tool, allowing them to design better child diet studies.

 

Why was this study needed?

The purpose of this study was to better understand what kept parents from accurately reporting their child’s diet and to identify the burdens the reporting tools put on parents and children.

 

Who was involved?

This study involved 40 children ages seven or eight in Colorado and Louisiana and their parents.

 

What happened during the study?

Parents reported on their child’s diet using the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) and the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24). The RFPM involves the parent taking photos of their child’s meals and snacks before and after eating using a smartphone app. The ASA24 involves the parent using a website to describe what their child ate on the previous day, including estimates of what the child ate while not present with the parent. Parents reported on their children’s diet using each of the two methods for three days apiece. Afterwards, parents were given surveys on their experience with the tools, and 32 parents participated in focus group discussions.

 

What happens next?

Future studies comparing the RFPM and ASA24 should look more closely at whether the burdens and barriers associated with those tools impact the quality and reliability of parent-reported child diet data. The results of this study may also help advance these parent-reported assessments, reducing participant burden and improving the quality of child diet data.

 

Where can I learn more?

Access the full journal article, titled “A Qualitative Analysis of the Remote Food Photography Method and the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool for Assessing Children’s Food Intake Reported by Parent Proxy,” in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The content is the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Published November 10, 2021.

 

A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring What Children Eat

Author(s): Traci Bekelman, Dana Dabelea, et al.  

 

Who sponsored this study?

This research was supported by the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, the Office of the Director, and the National Institutes of Health.

 

What were the study results?

Caregivers were happy with both methods. Some of the caregivers had challenges with the website technology of the ASA24 and may have reported more food than their child actually ate. When using the RFPM, caregivers were able to photograph most of their child’s meals and snacks, but not all of them.

Footnote: Results reported here are for a single study. Other or future studies may provide new information or different results. You should not make changes to your health without first consulting your healthcare professional.

 

What was the study's impact?

The researchers intend to use these findings to improve the way child diet is measured and monitored.  Caregivers may need help using the ASA24 website technology or providing the correct details about their child’s diet. Caregivers who use the RFPM may need more reminders to ensure that they photograph their child’s meals and snacks. Caregivers liked both methods, so future improvements will focus on making them both more accurate.

 

Why was this study needed?

Researchers started using new technologies to measure what children eat, but there is still a lot researchers don’t know about how accurate and burdensome these technologies are for measuring child diet.

 

Who was involved?

In this study, researchers included parents of children ages seven or eight from cities in Colorado and Louisiana. Most of the caregivers were moms who had at least a college degree.

 

What happened during the study?

Caregivers tried two ways of measuring what their child ate. The first way was through RFPM, a phone app that required caregivers to photograph their child’s food at the beginning and end of each meal or snack. The second way was through ASA24, which is a website where parents manually entered what their child ate during the previous day. They were then asked to complete a survey on satisfaction, how easy the tools were to use, and what made the tools hard to use.

 

What happens next?

Researchers will continue to learn about and improve these methods to make them even more accurate while reducing the burden on caregivers.

 

Where can I learn more?

More information can be found in a webinar previously organized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, titled “Approaches to Assessing Intake of Food and Dietary Supplements in Pregnant Women and Children 2 to 11 Years of Age.”

Access the full journal article, titled “A comparison of the Remote Food Photography Method and the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool for measuring full day dietary intake among school-aged children,” in the British Journal of Nutrition.

The content is the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Published June 4, 2021.

 

Access the associated article.

Download these summaries

ECHO Research Compares Burden of Parent-Reported Child Diet Assessments :
How Can Parents Accurately and Reliably Report on their Child’s Diet? and
A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring What Children Eat

read more summaries here:

Children’s body mass index: Does it vary by where children live and their individual characteristics?

Author(s): Dana Dabelea, et al.

Which Children Develop Asthma in the US

Author(s): Christine Cole Johnson and Aruna Chandran

How Environmental Exposures Affect Child Health Across Multiple Generations

Author(s): Carrie Breton, Rebecca Fry, Alison Hipwell, Cristiane Duarte, Linda Kahn, and Joseph Braun

ECHO Study Unifies Two Popular Surveys for Screening Adult Depression

<< Back to Research Summaries

ECHO Study Unifies Two Popular Surveys for Screening Adult Depression

Authors: Courtney K. Blackwell, Xiaodan Tang, Amy J. Elliott, Tracy Thomes, Hannah Louwagie, Richard Gershon, Benjamin D. Schalet, David Cella 

 

Who sponsored this study?

This research was supported by the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health, with co-funding from the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR).

 

What were the study results?

The EPDS and PROMIS-D both ask about increased sadness and decreased interest in daily activities. While the EPDS has additional content related to anxiety and suicidal ideation, the results of the two surveys were strongly linked. The researchers were able convert scores from the EPDS to PROMIS-D scores. The scoring conversion worked for different ages, ethnicities, races, and study sites.

Footnote: Results reported here are for a single study. Other or future studies may provide new information or different results. You should not make changes to your health without first consulting your healthcare professional.

 

What was the study's impact?

Adults are encouraged to get regular depression screenings. The EPDS survey is often used to detect depression in women during and after pregnancy. Doctors who want to continue long-term screening for women after pregnancy may want to convert EPDS scores into more general PROMIS-D scores for consistent tracking. Within ECHO, depression research spanning more than one cohort may need to convert between the EPDS and PROMIS-D surveys to combine data from multiple sites.

 

Why was this study needed?

Depression affects more than 17 million adults in the U.S. each year, and women are at higher risk for depression, particularly during and after pregnancy. Regular screening of adults for symptoms of depression is important for early intervention. Different surveys are used to track depression symptoms in adults, including ones specific to women during and after pregnancy. However, researchers need a uniform set of survey measures to track depression over a long time and to conduct nationwide research on depression. This study tried to unify two popular depression surveys: the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), which is used during and after pregnancy; and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression (PROMIS-D), which is used at any time in adulthood.

 

Who was involved?

Around 1,200 mothers from two study sites in the Northern Plains of the United States completed the EPDS and PROMIS-D surveys. Most of the participants were around 35 years old and white, but this sample also included American Indian/Alaska Natives. About half of the participants had a 4-year college degree or higher.

 

What happened during the study?

The participants filled out the EPDS and PROMIS-D. Researchers collected data and demographics using an online survey.

 

What happens next?

The survey conversion table made through this study may be useful for doctors and researchers interested in tracking depression symptoms over time. New studies may seek to confirm the link between EPDS and PROMIS-D using bigger, more diverse groups. Studies may also look at linking other depression surveys with the PROMIS-D for easier, more unified tracking of depression.

 

Where can I learn more?

The conversion table is available at prosettastone.org.

Access the journal abstract, titled, “Developing a common metric for depression across adulthood: Linking PROMIS Depression with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale,” in Psychological Assessment.

 

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

 

Published: May 31, 2021

 

Access the associated article.

Read more research by Courtney Blackwell

 

The influence of sleep on children’s well-being

Author(s): Courtney K. Blackwell

General health and life satisfaction in children with chronic illness

Author(s): Courtney K. Blackwell, Amy J. Elliott, Jody Ganiban, et al

ECHO Study Outlines How Researchers Can Combine Datasets With Different Confounders*

<< Back to Research Summaries

ECHO Study Outlines How Researchers Can Combine Datasets With Different Confounders*

Author(s): Ghassan B. Hamra, Bryan Lau, Catherine Lesko, Jessie Buckley, Daniel Tancredi, Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Elizabeth Jensen

*Confounders are factors in a study that can lead to bias. These factors must be adjusted so researchers can accurately understand the information.

 

Who sponsored this study?

This research was supported by the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health.

 

What were the study results?

Most of the time, the estimators showed similar numeric values of the estimates. The exception is when using a model known as logistic regression, which did not give similar estimates. Logistic regression provides an odds ratio, which is a non-collapsible quantity, or one that cannot be reliably combined.

 

What was the study's impact?

This study can help researchers understand and combine information across ECHO groups. When the same confounders are not available, or when study designs are different, researchers should avoid logistic regression. Other estimators provide estimates that can be reliably combined.

 

Why was this study needed?

A type of graph, called Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG), guide decisions on choosing confounders that need to be adjusted. These graphs also suggest how to get unconfounded (unbiased) effect estimates. These estimates are based on different statistical models and do not always provide the same actual numeric values. The research team explored when they do and do not correspond.

 

Who was involved?

Researchers from the John Hopkins University Data Analysis Center (JHU DAC), Wake Forest University, and University of California Davis joined together to explore this problem.

 

What happened during the study?

All study data are simulated, and Dr. Hamra at the JHU DAC built all of the models. Dr. Hamra also looked at all of the information.

 

What happens next?

Researchers can make more models to explore other forms of bias that could make combining information across studies difficult.

 

Where can I learn more?

Researchers can get the modeling code to look into this issue if they choose to in the journal article, titled “Combining Effect Estimates Across Cohorts and Sufficient Adjustment Sets for Collaborative Research: A Simulation Study” in Epidemiology.

 

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

 

Published: May 1, 2021

Best Practices for Conducting Clinical Trials with Indigenous Children in the United States

<< Back to Research Summaries

Best Practices for Conducting Clinical Trials with Indigenous Children in the United States

Author(s): Jennifer Shaw, Erin Semmens, May Okihiro, Johnnye Lewis, Matthew Hirschfeld, Timothy VanWagoner, Lancer Stephens, David Easa, Judith Ross, Niki Graham, Sara Watson, Edgardo Szyld, Denise Dillard, Lee Pyles, Paul Darden, John Carlson, Paul Smith, Russell McCulloh, Jessica Snowden, Sarah Adeky, Rosalyn Singleton

 

What was done?

The authors describe key ethical issues around conducting trials with Indigenous children. They review four case studies and provide guidance for conducting clinical trials involving Indigenous children.

 

What was found?

Based on their experience and a review of existing literature, the authors make three main recommendations for researchers conducting clinical trials involving Indigenous children:

  1. Engage with Indigenous communities early and over the long-term to build trust and shared goals
  2. Build capacity among Indigenous communities for leading and partnering on research studies
  3. Support Indigenous community ownership of data and oversight of research conducted with Indigenous children

 

What do the results mean?

Clinical trials are needed to build evidence for child health interventions. Indigenous children must be included in clinical trials to reduce health disparities and improve health outcomes in these populations. These studies should be done in partnership with communities using established practices of community-engaged research.

 

Why was this study conducted?

The United States (US) population includes nearly 7 million Indigenous people, including:

  • 5 million American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people, and
  • 5 million Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Island people.

Indigenous people in the US have lower life expectancies and higher disease burdens than other groups. Indigenous children have high rates of health conditions, such as asthma, obesity, and respiratory infections, compared to the general population. Few pediatric clinical trials have included Indigenous children. However, many of these children live in rural communities where interventions are often most needed. Children can respond to medicines and other health interventions differently based on their backgrounds. This paper highlights the reasons why Indigenous children may be excluded from trials and offers suggestions for improvement.

 

Appreciation:

The authors thank the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, for supporting this research.
You can read the full publication here: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306372

 

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

ECHO Researchers Test a Short Questionnaire for Measuring Autism-Related Behaviors in Children

<< Back to Research Summaries

ECHO Researchers Test a Short Questionnaire for Measuring Autism-Related Behaviors in Children

Author(s): Kristen Lyall and Craig Newschaffer  

 

Who sponsored this study?

This research was supported by the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health.

 

What were the study results?

The researchers found that the short questionnaire did a good job predicting autism diagnosis and measuring social communication behaviors. However, more research is needed to see how the short questionnaire compares in other ways to the long questionnaire.

Footnote: Results reported here are for a single study. Other or future studies may provide new information or different results. You should not make changes to your health without first consulting your healthcare professional.

 

What was the study's impact?

This study suggests that the shorter version of the questionnaire is quicker, easier for participants to complete, and produces the same quality of work as the longer version. This work is also important because it may be helpful for people who do not meet the definition of ASD, but still face challenges in social communication and could benefit from help.

 

Why was this study needed?

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a condition defined by challenges in social communication. Social communication refers to how we use language or words in social interactions with others, including how we may change words we use in different situations and with different people. This study wanted to see if a shorter version of a social communication questionnaire could predict ASD and other challenges related to social communication as correctly as a longer version. Having a shorter survey would mean that it would take participants less time to complete it. This study could also help identify questionnaires that could be used to find different social communication challenges in people with and without ASD.

 

Who was involved?

More than 3,000 people completed questionnaires for this study, including almost 200 parents who had a child with ASD between the age of 2-18. Participants were from research studies from across the United States.

 

What happened during the study?

Researchers used questionnaires from 10 different research projects in the United States to compare how well information from the shorter version predicted ASD diagnosis and measured broader behaviors in people without ASD diagnosis.

 

What happens next?

We now know that the shorter version of the questionnaire is comparable to the longer version, in terms of measuring these behaviors and predicting ASD diagnosis. However, more work is needed to confirm that the short questionnaire performs in all the same ways that the longer one does, since the study addressed only a few of these questions.

Note: This study is part of a project examining how different versions of this questionnaire measure ASD and broader, related social communication traits.

 

Where can I learn more?

More information on the questionnaire used in this study can be found through the publisher website and additional information on the shortened questionnaire can be found on PubMed.

Access the full journal article, titled “Distributional Properties and Criterion Validity of a Shortened Version of the Social Responsiveness Scale: Results from the ECHO Program and Implications for Social Communication Research.”

 

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

 

Published: September 17, 2020

ECHO Review Explores Statistical Approaches for Investigating Periods of Susceptibility in Children’s Environmental Health Research

<< Back to Research Summaries

ECHO Review Explores Statistical Approaches for Investigating Periods of Susceptibility in Children's Environmental Health Research

Author(s): Jessie Buckley, Ghassan Hamra, and Joseph Braun 

 

Who sponsored this study?

This research was supported by the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health.

 

What were the study results?

We found that there are many different ways to study this topic. However, several new ways stand out as more advanced.*

*Results reported here are for a single study. Other or future studies may provide new information or different results. You should not make changes to your health without first consulting your healthcare professional.

 

What was the study's impact?

Learning about the ages that children are most likely to be affected by their environment is important. Knowing that information will help create programs, health practices, and policies that may help children better avoid things in their environment that can have a bad effect on them. This study finds recent improvements in ways of looking at which ages children are most affected. It also explains terms about this topic and why we need ways to study it.

 

Why was this study needed?

Many researchers are interested in studying the ages that children are most likely to be affected by environmental factors. There are many ways to study this topic, so we looked at several different ways to decide which ones were the best.

 

Who was involved?

There were no participants involved in this review. This is because we looked at different ways to use math to learn more information about a topic.

 

What happened during the study?

During this study, we reviewed different ways to study the age ranges that children are most likely to see effects from the environment around them. Environment is not just the outdoors, but other things about a child’s life, such as where they live, their family, what they eat, and more.

 

What happens next?

Our team will use this information to improve the design of future studies.

 

Where can I learn more?

Access the full journal article titled, “Statistical Approaches for Investigating Periods of Susceptibility in Children's Environmental Health Research.”

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

 

Published: March 2019

ECHO DISCOVERY

Co-Author Jessie Buckley presented Estimating effects of exposure mixtures on child health: Novel methods for solution-oriented ECHO research at a past ECHO Discovery webinar. You can view the presentation here.

MORE RESEARCH BY JESSIE BUCKLEY

Review of Prenatal Air Pollution Exposure and Brain Development

Author(s): Heather E. Volk, Frederica Perera, Joseph M. Braun, Samantha L. Kingsley, Kim Gray, Jessie Buckley, Jane E. Clougherty, Lisa A. Croen, Brenda Eskenazi, Megan Herting, Allan C. Just, Itai Kloog, Amy Margolis, Leslie A. McClure, Rachel Miller, Sarah Levine, Rosalind Wright