6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dietary Intake Reporting Accuracy of the Bridge2U Mobile Application Food Log Compared to Control Meal and Dietary Recall Methods

      brief-report
      * , ,
      Nutrients
      MDPI
      diet, assessment, food log, recall

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Mobile technology introduces opportunity for new methods of dietary assessment. The purpose of this study was to compare the reporting accuracy of a mobile food log application and 24 h recall method to a controlled meal among a convenience sample of adults (18 years of age or older). Participants were recruited from a community/university convenience sample. Participants consumed a pre-portioned control meal, completed mobile food log entry (mfood log), and participated in a dietary recall administered by a registered dietitian (24R). Height, weight, and application use survey data were collected. Sign test, Pearson’s correlation, and descriptive analyses were conducted to examine differences in total and macronutrient energy intake and describe survey responses. Bland Altman plots were examined for agreement between energy intake from control and 24R and mfood log. The 14 included in the analyses were 78.6% female, 85.7% overweight/obese, and 64.3% African American. Mean total energy, protein, and fat intakes reported via the mfood log were significantly ( p < 0.05) lower compared to the control, by 268.31kcals, 20.37 g, and 19.51 g, respectively. Only 24R mean fat intake was significantly ( p < 0.01) lower than the control, by 6.43 g. Significant associations (r = 0.57–0.60, p < 0.05) were observed between control and mfood log mean energy, carbohydrate, and protein intakes, as well as between control and 24R mean energy (r = 0.64, p = 0.01) and carbohydrate (r = 0.81, p < 0.001) intakes. Bland Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement, which were not statistically significant but may have practical limitations for individual dietary assessment. Responses indicated the ease of and likelihood of daily mfood log use. This study demonstrates that the Bridge2U mfood log is valid for the assessment of group level data, but data may vary too widely for individual assessment. Further investigation is warranted for nutrition intervention research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The National Cancer Institute's Dietary Assessment Primer: A Resource for Diet Research.

          This monograph describes the National Cancer Institute's Dietary Assessment Primer, a web resource developed to help researchers choose the best available dietary assessment approach to achieve their research objective. All self-report instruments have error, but understanding the nature of that error can lead to better assessment, analysis, and interpretation of results. The Primer includes profiles of the major self-report dietary assessment instruments, including guidance on the best uses of each instrument; discussion of validation and measurement error generally and with respect to each instrument; guidance for choosing a dietary assessment approach for different research questions; and additional resources, such as a glossary, references, and overviews of specific/important issues in the field. This monograph also describes some future research needs in the field of dietary assessment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevalence and characteristics of misreporting of energy intake in US adults: NHANES 2003-2012.

            Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2012, we investigated the prevalence and characteristics of under-reporting and over-reporting of energy intake (EI) among 19 693 US adults ≥20 years of age. For the assessment of EI, two 24-h dietary recalls were conducted using the US Department of Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass Method. Under-reporters, acceptable reporters and over-reporters of EI were identified by two methods based on the 95 % confidence limits: (1) for agreement between the ratio of EI to BMR and a physical activity level for sedentary lifestyle (1·55) and (2) of the expected ratio of EI to estimated energy requirement (EER) of 1·0. BMR was calculated using Schofield's equations. EER was calculated using equations from the US Dietary Reference Intakes, assuming 'low active' level of physical activity. The risk of being an under-reporter or over-reporter compared with an acceptable reporter was analysed using multiple logistic regression. Percentages of under-reporters, acceptable reporters and over-reporters were 25·1, 73·5 and 1·4 %, respectively, based on EI:BMR, and 25·7, 71·8 and 2·5 %, respectively, based on EI:EER. Under-reporting was associated with female sex, older age, non-Hispanic blacks (compared with non-Hispanic whites), lower education, lower family poverty income ratio and overweight and obesity. Over-reporting was associated with male sex, younger age, lower family poverty income ratio, current smoking (compared with never smoking) and underweight. Similar findings were obtained when analysing only the first 24-h recall data from NHANES 1999-2012 (n 28 794). In conclusion, we found that misreporting of EI, particularly under-reporting, remains prevalent and differential in US adults.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Feasibility and validity of mobile phones to assess dietary intake.

              Current limitations of conventional dietary assessment methods restrict the establishment of diet-disease relationships and efficacy of dietary interventions. Technology, in particular the use of mobile phones, may help resolve methodologic limitations, in turn improving the validity of dietary assessment and research and associated findings. This review aims to evaluate the validity, feasibility, and acceptability of dietary assessment methods that have been deployed on mobile phone platforms. In August 2013, electronic databases for health sciences were searched for English, peer-reviewed, full-text articles, published from January 1, 2001 onward; and accompanied by a hand search of available relevant publications from universities and government bodies. Studies were not limited by design, length, setting, or population group. Of 194 articles, 12 met eligibility criteria: mobile phone as the dietary recording platform and validation of energy and/or macronutrient intake against another dietary or biological reference method. Four dietary recoding methods had been validated on mobile phone platforms: electronic food diary, food photograph-assisted self-administered, 24 h recall, food photograph analysis by trained dietitians, and automated food photograph analysis. All mobile phone dietary assessment methods showed similar, but not superior, validity or reliability when compared with conventional methods. Participants' satisfaction and preferences for mobile phone dietary assessment methods were higher than those for conventional methods, indicating the need for further research. Validity testing in larger and more diverse populations, over longer durations is required to evaluate the efficacy of these methods in dietary research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nutrients
                Nutrients
                nutrients
                Nutrients
                MDPI
                2072-6643
                19 January 2019
                January 2019
                : 11
                : 1
                : 199
                Affiliations
                The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5142, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001, USA; anna.k.lee@ 123456usm.edu (K.A.); ashley.lovetere@ 123456usm.edu (A.L.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: jennifer.lemacks@ 123456usm.edu ; Tel.: +1-601-266-6825
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2925-7208
                Article
                nutrients-11-00199
                10.3390/nu11010199
                6357170
                30669430
                3e77e33c-9178-477b-872f-0890c46c8ef4
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 17 December 2018
                : 17 January 2019
                Categories
                Brief Report

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                diet,assessment,food log,recall
                Nutrition & Dietetics
                diet, assessment, food log, recall

                Comments

                Comment on this article