Ebaa Al-Ozairi1,2, Manar M AlAwadhi3, Jumana Al Kandari4,5, Etab Taghadom4,5, Mohammad Abdullah6, Carel W Le Roux7. 1. Dasman Diabetes Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, P. O. Box 24923, 13110, Kuwait City, Kuwait. ebaa.alozairi@dasmaninstitute.org. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Kuwait. ebaa.alozairi@dasmaninstitute.org. 3. Faculty of Public Health, Department of Public Health Practice, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Kuwait. 4. Dasman Diabetes Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, P. O. Box 24923, 13110, Kuwait City, Kuwait. 5. Ministry of Health Kuwait, Kuwait City, Kuwait. 6. Royal College of Surgeon, Dublin, Ireland. 7. Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bariatric operations are effective obesity treatments because of the significant reductions in food intake after surgery, but weight regain remains a problem in a small group of patients after surgery. Estimating food intake is difficult due to dieting status, weight, gender, and challenges with estimating portion size. We aimed to evaluate the use of digital food photography in comparison to conventional methods among patients after sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: Participants used a mobile device (mHealth) to photo-document their dietary intake of all food and beverages consumed before and after eating. They also completed a 24 h food recall interview with a dietician. RESULTS: Data from 383 eating occasions were analyzed. Food intake using 24 h recall was reported as 972.5 ± 77 kcal and estimates from photographs were 802.9 ± 63.4 kcal, with a difference of 169.6 ± 451.4 kcal (95% confidence interval (CI) of 41.4 to 297.9 kcal, p = 0.005). There was no difference for protein intake, but carbohydrate intake reported during the 24 h recall was 541.2 ± 298 kcal and estimates from photographs were 395.2 ± 219.6 kcal, with a difference of 145.8 ± 256.3 kcal (95% CI of 73.2 to 218.8 kcal, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: After sleeve gastrectomy, patients reported eating more total calories and calories from carbohydrates compared to estimations using photographs. The implication for patients are that tools such as mHealth might be useful to optimize food intake and calories after sleeve gastrectomy, especially for those patients that may struggle with weight regain after surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Bariatric operations are effective obesity treatments because of the significant reductions in food intake after surgery, but weight regain remains a problem in a small group of patients after surgery. Estimating food intake is difficult due to dieting status, weight, gender, and challenges with estimating portion size. We aimed to evaluate the use of digital food photography in comparison to conventional methods among patients after sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS:Participants used a mobile device (mHealth) to photo-document their dietary intake of all food and beverages consumed before and after eating. They also completed a 24 h food recall interview with a dietician. RESULTS: Data from 383 eating occasions were analyzed. Food intake using 24 h recall was reported as 972.5 ± 77 kcal and estimates from photographs were 802.9 ± 63.4 kcal, with a difference of 169.6 ± 451.4 kcal (95% confidence interval (CI) of 41.4 to 297.9 kcal, p = 0.005). There was no difference for protein intake, but carbohydrate intake reported during the 24 h recall was 541.2 ± 298 kcal and estimates from photographs were 395.2 ± 219.6 kcal, with a difference of 145.8 ± 256.3 kcal (95% CI of 73.2 to 218.8 kcal, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: After sleeve gastrectomy, patients reported eating more total calories and calories from carbohydrates compared to estimations using photographs. The implication for patients are that tools such as mHealth might be useful to optimize food intake and calories after sleeve gastrectomy, especially for those patients that may struggle with weight regain after surgery.
Authors: Laurence S Freedman; John M Commins; James E Moler; Lenore Arab; David J Baer; Victor Kipnis; Douglas Midthune; Alanna J Moshfegh; Marian L Neuhouser; Ross L Prentice; Arthur Schatzkin; Donna Spiegelman; Amy F Subar; Lesley F Tinker; Walter Willett Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Amy F Subar; Victor Kipnis; Richard P Troiano; Douglas Midthune; Dale A Schoeller; Sheila Bingham; Carolyn O Sharbaugh; Jillian Trabulsi; Shirley Runswick; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Joel Sunshine; Arthur Schatzkin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: S W Lichtman; K Pisarska; E R Berman; M Pestone; H Dowling; E Offenbacher; H Weisel; S Heshka; D E Matthews; S B Heymsfield Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-12-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Janet L Welch; Katie A Siek; Kay H Connelly; Kim S Astroth; M Sue McManus; Linda Scott; Seongkum Heo; Michael A Kraus Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-09-30
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014