Evaluation of the dietary intake data coding process in a clinical setting: Implications for research practice.

BACKGROUND

High quality dietary intake data is required to support evidence of diet-disease relationships exposed in clinical research. Source data verification may be a useful quality assurance method in this setting. The present pilot study aimed to apply source data verification to evaluate the quality of the data coding process for dietary intake in a clinical trial and to explore potential barriers to data quality in this setting.

METHODS

Using a sample of 20 cases from a clinical trial, source data verification was conducted between three sets of data derived documents: transcripts of audio-recorded diet history interviews, matched paper-based diet history forms and outputs from nutrition analysis software. The number of cases and rates of discrepancies between documents were calculated. A total of five in-depth interviews with dietitians collecting and coding dietary data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Some 2024 discrepancies were identified. The highest discrepancy rate was 57.49%, and occurred between diet history interviews and nutrition analysis software outputs. Sources of the discrepancies included both quantities and frequencies of food intake. The highest discrepancy rate was for the food group "vegetable products and dishes". In-depth interviews implicated recall bias of trial participants as a cause of discrepancies, but dietitians also acknowledged a possible subconscious influence of having to code reported foods into nutrition analysis software programs.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of dietary intake data appeared to depend on the level of detailed food data required. More support for participants on reporting consumption, and incorporating supportive tools to guide estimates of food quantities may facilitate a more consistent coding process and improve data quality. This pilot study offers a novel method and an overview of dietary intake data coding measurement errors. These findings may warrant further investigation in a larger sample.