Nicole Prinz1, Barbara Bohn1, Annamarie Kern1, Deborah Püngel1, Olga Pollatos2, Reinhard W Holl1. 1. 1Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry,Central Institute for Biomedical Technology(ZIBMT),University of Ulm,Albert-Einstein-Allee 41,89081 Ulm,Germany. 2. 3Institute of Psychology and Education,Clinical and Health Psychology,University of Ulm,Ulm,Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: For dietary assessment, mobile devices with a camera can be used as an alternative to hand-written paper records. The Nutritional Tracking Information Smartphone (Nutris-Phone) study aimed to examine relative validity and feasibility of a photo-based dietary record in everyday life. DESIGN: Parallel to the photo-based technique, a weighed record was performed. Participant satisfaction was assessed by questionnaire. A trained nutrition scientist evaluated portion sizes and nutrient content was calculated (DGExpert). Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were applied. SETTING: Healthy, non-pregnant volunteers (≥18 years) without intent to lose weight recruited at Ulm University, Germany. SUBJECTS: Sixty-six participants (36 % males, median age 22·0 (interquartile range 20·0-25·0) years) took pictures of foods and beverages consumed with a commercially available mobile phone. RESULTS: Significant correlation between the photo-based and weighed record was observed: energy (r=0·991), carbohydrate (r=0·980), fat (r=0·972), protein (r=0·988), fibre (r=0·941). Bland-Altman analyses indicated comparable means and acceptable 95 % limits of agreement (energy: -345·2 to 302·9 kJ (-82·5 to 72·4 kcal); carbohydrate: -15·2 to 13·1 g; fat: -6·4 to 6·4 g; protein: -5·9 to 5·6 g; fibre: -2·7 to 2·5 g). However, with increasing intake level, underestimation by the digital method was present (except for fat, all P<0·01). Over 80 % of participants were satisfied with the photo-based record. In nearly 90 %, technical implementation was without major problems. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a weighed record, the photo-based dietary record seems to be valid, feasible and user-friendly to estimate energy, macronutrient and fibre intakes, although a systematic bias with increasing levels of intake should be kept in mind.
OBJECTIVE: For dietary assessment, mobile devices with a camera can be used as an alternative to hand-written paper records. The Nutritional Tracking Information Smartphone (Nutris-Phone) study aimed to examine relative validity and feasibility of a photo-based dietary record in everyday life. DESIGN: Parallel to the photo-based technique, a weighed record was performed. Participant satisfaction was assessed by questionnaire. A trained nutrition scientist evaluated portion sizes and nutrient content was calculated (DGExpert). Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were applied. SETTING: Healthy, non-pregnant volunteers (≥18 years) without intent to lose weight recruited at Ulm University, Germany. SUBJECTS: Sixty-six participants (36 % males, median age 22·0 (interquartile range 20·0-25·0) years) took pictures of foods and beverages consumed with a commercially available mobile phone. RESULTS: Significant correlation between the photo-based and weighed record was observed: energy (r=0·991), carbohydrate (r=0·980), fat (r=0·972), protein (r=0·988), fibre (r=0·941). Bland-Altman analyses indicated comparable means and acceptable 95 % limits of agreement (energy: -345·2 to 302·9 kJ (-82·5 to 72·4 kcal); carbohydrate: -15·2 to 13·1 g; fat: -6·4 to 6·4 g; protein: -5·9 to 5·6 g; fibre: -2·7 to 2·5 g). However, with increasing intake level, underestimation by the digital method was present (except for fat, all P<0·01). Over 80 % of participants were satisfied with the photo-based record. In nearly 90 %, technical implementation was without major problems. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a weighed record, the photo-based dietary record seems to be valid, feasible and user-friendly to estimate energy, macronutrient and fibre intakes, although a systematic bias with increasing levels of intake should be kept in mind.
Authors: Richard D Mattes; Sylvia B Rowe; Sarah D Ohlhorst; Andrew W Brown; Daniel J Hoffman; DeAnn J Liska; Edith J M Feskens; Jaapna Dhillon; Katherine L Tucker; Leonard H Epstein; Lynnette M Neufeld; Michael Kelley; Naomi K Fukagawa; Roger A Sunde; Steven H Zeisel; Anthony J Basile; Laura E Borth; Emahlea Jackson Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 11.567
Authors: Sai Krupa Das; Akari J Miki; Caroline M Blanchard; Edward Sazonov; Cheryl H Gilhooly; Sujit Dey; Colton B Wolk; Chor San H Khoo; James O Hill; Robin P Shook Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 11.567
Authors: Louise Thornton; Bridie Osman; Katrina Champion; Olivia Green; Annie B Wescott; Lauren A Gardner; Courtney Stewart; Rachel Visontay; Jesse Whife; Belinda Parmenter; Louise Birrell; Zachary Bryant; Cath Chapman; David Lubans; Tim Slade; John Torous; Maree Teesson; Pepijn Van de Ven Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.947