Comparison of dietary supplement intake reporting between the Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Recall (ASA24) and Automated Multiple Pass Method (AMPM) recalls (245.2)

Objective: To compare dietary supplement use reported on self‐administered (ASA24) versus interviewer‐administered (AMPM) 24‐hour recalls. Methods: About 1200 women and men were recruited from three integrated health systems using quota sampling to capture a range of ages and racial/ethnic backgrounds. Participants were randomized into four groups and asked to complete two recalls: 1) two ASA24s; 2) two AMPMs; 3) ASA24 first, AMPM second; 4) AMPM first, ASA24 second. Dietary supplements were coded using the 2007‐2008 NHANES Dietary Supplement Database. Difference in prevalence of reported supplement use was tested using a Chi‐square test. Results: Food and supplement data were complete for 1089 participants. Prevalence of use of any dietary supplement on either day was not significantly different by recall mode overall (47.8% for AMPM (n=1022) vs.48.5% for ASA24 (n=1012); p=0.82) or within sex, age, or race/ethnicity groups. Among supplement users, the prevalence of reported multivitamin use was significantly higher on AMPM compared to ASA24 (65.9% vs. 57.2%; p <0.01). In ASA24, 50 participants reported 114 supplements as “unknown”, meaning they were unable to find their supplement in the ASA24 database. Discussion: The ASA24 performs similarly to AMPM for estimating overall prevalence of dietary supplement use. Significant differences found in the reporting of multivitamins specifically could be related to the number of unknown supplements reported in ASA24. Coding of text entered for supplements not found in ASA24 may be necessary to obtain accurate prevalence of supplement type and nutrient estimates. Based on these findings, future versions of ASA24 will include questions when unknown supplements are reported for the purpose of assigning reasonable default supplement codes.