Kirsty Maunder1,2, Kathryn Marshall3, Kainaat Syed1, Sara Smilevska4, Eleanor Beck1, May Mak1,5, Vicki Barrington4. 1. School of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia. 2. The CBORD Group, Chatswood, NSW, Australia. 3. Nutrition and Dietetics, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 4. Department of Dietetics, Human Nutrition and Sport, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia. 5. Dietetics Department, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate dietary intake data are critical to nutrition care planning. Commonly used food record charts (FRC) are paper-based, time consuming, require nutrient analysis estimations, and may provide limited accuracy. The present study aimed to validate Mobile Intake® (MI) (an electronic food intake tool incorporating the five-point visual scale and providing automatic nutrient analysis) for usability and efficacy in quantifying dietary intake in the healthcare setting. METHODS: Two research stages within two tertiary hospitals included: (1) examining criterion validity and efficiency of dietary intake quantification using FRC and MI compared to the gold standard weighed food record (WFR) in a controlled environment and (2) comparing efficiency and effectiveness of FRC and MI in usual care conditions. RESULTS: In Stage 1, dietary intake was calculated (n = 90) with a significant difference across all methods (FRC, MI and WFR) for energy (p = 0.04), but not between MI and WFR (p = 1.00). The time taken for MI (40 s) was significantly less than FRC (174 s) and WFR (371 s) (p < 001). In Stage 2, dietary intake was determined (n = 210) using FRC and MI. Sufficient data to complete dietary analysis were available for 35% of meals from FRC compared to 98% from MI. Calculated mean daily energy intake (4764 ± 1432 kJ vs. 6636 ± 2519 kJ, p = 0.002) and mean daily protein intake (62.9 ± 12.7 g vs. 78.5 ± 22.2 g, p = 0.007) were significantly lower with FRC compared to MI. Average time to complete MI was 14.4 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: MI demonstrates efficacy as an accurate measure of dietary intake compared to WFR, as well as usability, providing faster, more accurate and comprehensive real-time intake data in practice than FRC.
BACKGROUND: Accurate dietary intake data are critical to nutrition care planning. Commonly used food record charts (FRC) are paper-based, time consuming, require nutrient analysis estimations, and may provide limited accuracy. The present study aimed to validate Mobile Intake® (MI) (an electronic food intake tool incorporating the five-point visual scale and providing automatic nutrient analysis) for usability and efficacy in quantifying dietary intake in the healthcare setting. METHODS: Two research stages within two tertiary hospitals included: (1) examining criterion validity and efficiency of dietary intake quantification using FRC and MI compared to the gold standard weighed food record (WFR) in a controlled environment and (2) comparing efficiency and effectiveness of FRC and MI in usual care conditions. RESULTS: In Stage 1, dietary intake was calculated (n = 90) with a significant difference across all methods (FRC, MI and WFR) for energy (p = 0.04), but not between MI and WFR (p = 1.00). The time taken for MI (40 s) was significantly less than FRC (174 s) and WFR (371 s) (p < 001). In Stage 2, dietary intake was determined (n = 210) using FRC and MI. Sufficient data to complete dietary analysis were available for 35% of meals from FRC compared to 98% from MI. Calculated mean daily energy intake (4764 ± 1432 kJ vs. 6636 ± 2519 kJ, p = 0.002) and mean daily protein intake (62.9 ± 12.7 g vs. 78.5 ± 22.2 g, p = 0.007) were significantly lower with FRC compared to MI. Average time to complete MI was 14.4 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: MI demonstrates efficacy as an accurate measure of dietary intake compared to WFR, as well as usability, providing faster, more accurate and comprehensive real-time intake data in practice than FRC.