These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dietary Intake Assessment Using a Novel, Generic Meal-Based Recall and a 24-Hour Recall: Comparison Study.
    Author: O'Hara C, Gibney ER.
    Journal: J Med Internet Res; 2024 Feb 14; 26():e48817. PubMed ID: 38354039.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Dietary intake assessment is an integral part of addressing suboptimal dietary intakes. Existing food-based methods are time-consuming and burdensome for users to report the individual foods consumed at each meal. However, ease of use is the most important feature for individuals choosing a nutrition or diet app. Intakes of whole meals can be reported in a manner that is less burdensome than reporting individual foods. No study has developed a method of dietary intake assessment where individuals report their dietary intakes as whole meals rather than individual foods. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a novel, meal-based method of dietary intake assessment and test its ability to estimate nutrient intakes compared with that of a web-based, 24-hour recall (24HR). METHODS: Participants completed a web-based, generic meal-based recall. This involved, for each meal type (breakfast, light meal, main meal, snack, and beverage), choosing from a selection of meal images those that most represented their intakes during the previous day. Meal images were based on generic meals from a previous study that were representative of the actual meal intakes in Ireland. Participants also completed a web-based 24HR. Both methods were completed on the same day, 3 hours apart. In a crossover design, participants were randomized in terms of which method they completed first. Then, 2 weeks after the first dietary assessments, participants repeated the process in the reverse order. Estimates of mean daily nutrient intakes and the categorization of individuals according to nutrient-based guidelines (eg, low, adequate, and high) were compared between the 2 methods. P values of less than .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In total, 161 participants completed the study. For the 23 nutrient variables compared, the median percentage difference between the 2 methods was 7.6% (IQR 2.6%-13.2%), with P values ranging from <.001 to .97, and out of 23 variables, effect sizes for the differences were small for 19 (83%) variables, moderate for 2 (9%) variables, and large for 2 (9%) variables. Correlation coefficients were statistically significant (P<.05) for 18 (78%) of the 23 variables. Statistically significant correlations ranged from 0.16 to 0.45, with median correlation of 0.32 (IQR 0.25-0.40). When participants were classified according to nutrient-based guidelines, the proportion of individuals who were classified into the same category ranged from 52.8% (85/161) to 84.5% (136/161). CONCLUSIONS: A generic meal-based method of dietary intake assessment provides estimates of nutrient intake comparable with those provided by a web-based 24HR but with varying levels of agreement among nutrients. Further studies are required to refine and improve the generic recall across a range of nutrients. Future studies will consider user experience including the potential feasibility of incorporating image recognition of whole meals into the generic recall.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]