Gertler Maximilian, Czogiel Irina, Stark Klaus, Wilking Hendrik
Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany.
Postgraduate Training for Applied Epidemiology (PAE), Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Berlin, Germany.
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 22;12(6):e0179121. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179121. eCollection 2017.
Poor 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.
Lunch 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.
We 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.
Forgetting 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.
在食源性疾病暴发调查中,回忆不佳可能导致暴露确定出现错误分类。我们开展了一项模拟研究,以评估回忆错误的频率及其决定因素。
一家仅使用无现金支付的自助餐厅的午餐顾客,使用自行填写的纸质问卷报告了他们在前三周每天所消费的13种食物。我们使用电子支付信息对这些信息进行了验证。我们根据时间、年龄、性别、教育水平、饮食习惯和食物种类,计算了回忆错误分类的相关因素。
我们纳入了145/226名(64%)受访者,他们报告了27,095份消费的食物。回忆的敏感性为73%,特异性为96%。在多变量分析中,回忆期每增加一天,假阴性回忆的校正几率增加8%(比值比:1.1;95%置信区间:1.06,1.1),假阳性回忆增加3%(比值比:1.03;95%置信区间:1.02,1.05),不确定回忆增加12%(比值比:1.1;95%置信区间:1.08,1.15)。性别和教育水平的影响较小。
忘记报告已消费的食物比报告实际未消费的食物更为常见。访谈延迟会大大增加回忆不佳的情况,这可能会使假设的产生和检验极具挑战性。配菜比主菜更容易被遗漏。如果有电子支付数据,可改善食物历史信息。