Cargando…

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

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© (RFPM, via SmartIntake(®) app), and a novel app (PortionSize(...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Höchsmann, Christoph, Fearnbach, Nicole, Dorling, James L., Fazzino, Tera L., Myers, Candice A., Apolzan, John W., Martin, Corby K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8539386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34684341
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13103340
_version_ 1784588734487855104
author Höchsmann, Christoph
Fearnbach, Nicole
Dorling, James L.
Fazzino, Tera L.
Myers, Candice A.
Apolzan, John W.
Martin, Corby K.
author_facet Höchsmann, Christoph
Fearnbach, Nicole
Dorling, James L.
Fazzino, Tera L.
Myers, Candice A.
Apolzan, John W.
Martin, Corby K.
author_sort Höchsmann, Christoph
collection PubMed
description 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© (RFPM, via SmartIntake(®) app), and a novel app (PortionSize(®)) 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(®), 51.9% and 53.4% preferred PortionSize(®), 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 ρ ≥ 0.82; all p < 0.001). Willingness (mean (SD)) to use the RFPM/SmartIntake(®) (food: 6.6 (2.0); alcohol: 6.4 (2.4)) was greater than PortionSize(®) (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 ≥ 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8539386
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85393862021-10-24 Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake Höchsmann, Christoph Fearnbach, Nicole Dorling, James L. Fazzino, Tera L. Myers, Candice A. Apolzan, John W. Martin, Corby K. Nutrients Article 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© (RFPM, via SmartIntake(®) app), and a novel app (PortionSize(®)) 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(®), 51.9% and 53.4% preferred PortionSize(®), 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 ρ ≥ 0.82; all p < 0.001). Willingness (mean (SD)) to use the RFPM/SmartIntake(®) (food: 6.6 (2.0); alcohol: 6.4 (2.4)) was greater than PortionSize(®) (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 ≥ 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. MDPI 2021-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8539386/ /pubmed/34684341 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13103340 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Höchsmann, Christoph
Fearnbach, Nicole
Dorling, James L.
Fazzino, Tera L.
Myers, Candice A.
Apolzan, John W.
Martin, Corby K.
Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake
title Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake
title_full Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake
title_fullStr Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake
title_full_unstemmed Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake
title_short Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake
title_sort preference, expected burden, and willingness to use digital and traditional methods to assess food and alcohol intake
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8539386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34684341
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13103340
work_keys_str_mv AT hochsmannchristoph preferenceexpectedburdenandwillingnesstousedigitalandtraditionalmethodstoassessfoodandalcoholintake
AT fearnbachnicole preferenceexpectedburdenandwillingnesstousedigitalandtraditionalmethodstoassessfoodandalcoholintake
AT dorlingjamesl preferenceexpectedburdenandwillingnesstousedigitalandtraditionalmethodstoassessfoodandalcoholintake
AT fazzinoteral preferenceexpectedburdenandwillingnesstousedigitalandtraditionalmethodstoassessfoodandalcoholintake
AT myerscandicea preferenceexpectedburdenandwillingnesstousedigitalandtraditionalmethodstoassessfoodandalcoholintake
AT apolzanjohnw preferenceexpectedburdenandwillingnesstousedigitalandtraditionalmethodstoassessfoodandalcoholintake
AT martincorbyk preferenceexpectedburdenandwillingnesstousedigitalandtraditionalmethodstoassessfoodandalcoholintake