4.7 Article

A Mobile Phone Based Method to Assess Energy and Food Intake in Young Children: A Validation Study against the Doubly Labelled Water Method and 24 h Dietary Recalls

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu8010050

Keywords

mobile phones; energy intake; food intake; total energy expenditure; child; DLW; 24 h dietary recall

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [2012-2883]
  2. Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [2012-0906]
  3. Bo and Vera Axson Johnsons Foundation
  4. Karolinska Institutet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mobile phones are becoming important instruments for assessing diet and energy intake. We developed the Tool for Energy Balance in Children (TECH), which uses a mobile phone to assess energy and food intake in pre-school children. The aims of this study were: (a) to compare energy intake (EI) using TECH with total energy expenditure (TEE) measured via doubly labelled water (DLW); and (b) to compare intakes of fruits, vegetables, fruit juice, sweetened beverages, candy, ice cream, and bakery products using TECH with intakes acquired by 24 h dietary recalls. Participants were 39 healthy, Swedish children (5.5 +/- 0.5 years) within the ongoing Mobile-based Intervention Intended to Stop Obesity in Preschoolers (MINISTOP) obesity prevention trial. Energy and food intakes were assessed during four days using TECH and 24 h telephone dietary recalls. Mean EI (TECH) was not statistically different from TEE (DLW) (5820 +/- 820 kJ/24 h and 6040 +/- 680kJ/24 h, respectively). No significant differences in the average food intakes using TECH and 24 h dietary recalls were found. All food intakes were correlated between TECH and the 24 h dietary recalls (r = 0.665-0.896, p < 0.001). In conclusion, TECH accurately estimated the average intakes of energy and selected foods and thus has the potential to be a useful tool for dietary studies in pre-school children, for example obesity prevention trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available