Validity of a digital photo-based dietary assessment tool: Development and initial evaluation.

IF 1.9 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition and health Pub Date : 2024-07-23 DOI:10.1177/02601060241239095
Dwi Budiningsari, Firma Syahrian
{"title":"Validity of a digital photo-based dietary assessment tool: Development and initial evaluation.","authors":"Dwi Budiningsari, Firma Syahrian","doi":"10.1177/02601060241239095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and aim:</b> To evaluate the validity and user satisfaction of a digital photo-based dietary assessment tool as an alternative to the hand-written paper record method that assists researchers during the pandemic. This study compared nutrient intake and users' satisfaction with methods between a digital photo-based dietary assessment tool, known as the Nutrinote Gama app, and food weighing as the gold standard. <b>Methods:</b> Fifty college students majoring in food and nutrition (90% were women; median age, 21 years) took pictures of their foods and beverages before and after consumption and then uploaded them to the Nutrinote Gama application. Trained nutritionists evaluated plate wastes, and nutritional content was revealed on the Nutrinote Gama application. Parallel to the photo-based method, they kept a weight dietary record and sent it to the researcher. A questionnaire was used to assess participants' satisfaction. <b>Results:</b> No statistical differences (<i>p</i> = 0.89) were observed in the measurement of energy intake between Nutrinote Gama (mean ± standard deviation [SD] = 582.8 ± 131) and food weighing (mean ± SD = 566.1 ± 133). No statistical differences (<i>p</i> = 0.59) were also observed in the measurement of protein, fat (<i>p</i> = 0.434), and carbohydrate (<i>p</i> = 230). The energy, protein, fat, and carbohydrate intakes estimated from the two methods were significantly correlated (<i>r</i> = 0.86, 0.870, 0.811, 0.738, respectively). Over 70% of participants were satisfied with the photo-based record. <b>Conclusion:</b> The results indicate that this digital photo-based dietary assessment tool is valid and user-friendly to estimate nutrient intake.</p>","PeriodicalId":19352,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition and health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02601060241239095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim: To evaluate the validity and user satisfaction of a digital photo-based dietary assessment tool as an alternative to the hand-written paper record method that assists researchers during the pandemic. This study compared nutrient intake and users' satisfaction with methods between a digital photo-based dietary assessment tool, known as the Nutrinote Gama app, and food weighing as the gold standard. Methods: Fifty college students majoring in food and nutrition (90% were women; median age, 21 years) took pictures of their foods and beverages before and after consumption and then uploaded them to the Nutrinote Gama application. Trained nutritionists evaluated plate wastes, and nutritional content was revealed on the Nutrinote Gama application. Parallel to the photo-based method, they kept a weight dietary record and sent it to the researcher. A questionnaire was used to assess participants' satisfaction. Results: No statistical differences (p = 0.89) were observed in the measurement of energy intake between Nutrinote Gama (mean ± standard deviation [SD] = 582.8 ± 131) and food weighing (mean ± SD = 566.1 ± 133). No statistical differences (p = 0.59) were also observed in the measurement of protein, fat (p = 0.434), and carbohydrate (p = 230). The energy, protein, fat, and carbohydrate intakes estimated from the two methods were significantly correlated (r = 0.86, 0.870, 0.811, 0.738, respectively). Over 70% of participants were satisfied with the photo-based record. Conclusion: The results indicate that this digital photo-based dietary assessment tool is valid and user-friendly to estimate nutrient intake.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于数码照片的饮食评估工具的有效性:开发和初步评估。
背景和目的:评估基于照片的数字化膳食评估工具的有效性和用户满意度,以替代手写纸质记录方法,在大流行病期间为研究人员提供帮助。本研究比较了基于照片的数字膳食评估工具(即 Nutrinote Gama 应用程序)与作为黄金标准的食物称重之间的营养素摄入量和用户对方法的满意度。方法:50 名主修食品与营养学的大学生(90% 为女性;年龄中位数为 21 岁)拍摄了他们食用食物和饮料前后的照片,然后上传到 Nutrinote Gama 应用程序。训练有素的营养学家对餐盘垃圾进行评估,并在 Nutrinote Gama 应用程序上显示营养成分。在采用拍照法的同时,他们还保留了体重饮食记录,并将其发送给研究人员。调查问卷用于评估参与者的满意度。结果Nutrinote Gama(平均值±标准差[SD] = 582.8 ± 131)和食物称重(平均值±标准差 = 566.1 ± 133)在测量能量摄入量方面没有发现统计学差异(p = 0.89)。在蛋白质、脂肪(p = 0.434)和碳水化合物(p = 230)的测量中也未观察到统计学差异(p = 0.59)。两种方法估算出的能量、蛋白质、脂肪和碳水化合物摄入量存在显著相关性(r 分别为 0.86、0.870、0.811 和 0.738)。超过 70% 的参与者对照片记录感到满意。结论结果表明,这种基于照片的数字化膳食评估工具在估算营养素摄入量方面既有效又方便用户使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition and health
Nutrition and health Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
160
期刊最新文献
ChatGPT as a psychotherapist for anxiety disorders: An empirical study with anxiety patients. Efficacy of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotics in improving growth in children under age five years in Africa: A protocol for a systematic review. Relationship between maternal anemia during pregnancy and the risk of preeclampsia: A multicenter case-control study. Long-term food supplementation with sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) prevents age-associated cognitive decline in female mice. Impact of cultural, nutrition, and lifestyle transition on human milk composition between the Orang Asli communities in Peninsular Malaysia: A study protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1