4.7 Article

Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13103340

关键词

food intake; food records; RFPM; PortionSize; diet recall; alcohol

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health National Research Service Award [T32DK064584]
  2. American Heart Association [20POST35210907]
  3. National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R01 DK124558]
  4. Louisiana State University LIFT2 grant entitled: PortionSize: A market-ready app to estimate and manage portion size
  5. NORC Center grant - NIDDK [P30 DK072476]
  6. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [U54 GM104940]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The online survey showed that most people preferred using the RFPM/SmartIntake(R) method for assessing food and alcohol intake, with lower preference for PortionSize(R) and 24-h recalls. People were more willing to use the RFPM/SmartIntake(R) method compared to PortionSize(R) and 24-h recalls.
We conducted an online survey to examine the preference, expected burden, and willingness of people to use four different methods of assessing food and alcohol intake such as food/drink record, 24-h recall, Remote Food Photography Method (c) (RFPM, via SmartIntake(R) app), and a novel app (PortionSize(R)) that allows the in-app portion size estimation of foods/drinks by the user. For food (N = 1959) and alcohol (N = 466) intake assessment, 67.3% and 63.3%, respectively, preferred the RFPM/SmartIntake(R), 51.9% and 53.4% preferred PortionSize(R), 48.0% and 49.3% the food records, and 32.9% and 33.9% the 24-h recalls (difference in preference across all methods was p < 0.001 for food and alcohol intake). Ratings of burden and preference of methods were virtually superimposable, and we found strong correlations between high preference and low expected burden for all methods (all rho & GE; 0.82; all p < 0.001). Willingness (mean (SD)) to use the RFPM/SmartIntake(R) (food: 6.6 (2.0); alcohol: 6.4 (2.4)) was greater than PortionSize(R) (food: 6.0 (2.2); alcohol: 6.0 (2.4); all p < 0.001) and 24-h recalls (food: 6.1 (2.2); alcohol: 5.7 (2.7); p < 0.001), but not different from food records (food: 6.6 (2.0); alcohol: 6.5 (2.3); all p & GE; 0.33). Our results can be used in conjunction with existing data on the reliability and validity of these methods in order to inform the selection of methods for the assessment of food and alcohol intake.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据