Search

BackgroundThe web-based EatWellQ8 food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was developed as a dietary assessment tool for healthy adults in Kuwait. Validation against reliable instruments and assessment of its reproducibility are required to ensure the accuracy of the EatWellQ8 FFQ in computing nutrient intake. ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the reproducibility and relative validity of the EatWellQ8 146-item FFQ, which included images of food portion sizes based on The Composition of Foods by McCance and Widdowson and food composition tables from Kuwait and the Kingdom of Bahrain, against a paper-based FFQ (PFFQ) and a 4-day weighed food record (WFR). MethodsReproducibility of the EatWellQ8 FFQ was assessed using a test-retest methodology. Participants were required to complete the FFQ at 2 time points, 4 weeks apart. To assess the relative validity of the EatWellQ8 FFQ, a subset of the participants were asked to complete a PFFQ or a 4-day WFR 1 week after the administration of the EatWellQ8 FFQ. The level of agreement between nutrient and food group intakes was estimated by repeated EatWellQ8 FFQ administration. The EatWellQ8 FFQ, PFFQ, and 4-day WFR were also evaluated using the Bland-Altman methodology and classified into quartiles of daily intake. Crude unadjusted correlation coefficients were also calculated for nutrients and food groups. ResultsA total of 99 Kuwaiti participants (64/99, 65% female and 35/99, 35% male) completed the study—53 participated in the reproducibility study and the 4-day WFR validity study (mean age 37.1 years, SD 9.9) and 46 participated in the PFFQ validity study (mean age 36.2 years, SD 8.3). Crude unadjusted correlations for repeated EatWellQ8 FFQs ranged from 0.37 to 0.93 (mean r=0.67, SD 0.14; 95% CI 0.11-0.95) for nutrients and food groups (P=.01). Mean cross-classification into exact agreement plus adjacent was 88% for nutrient intakes and 86% for food groups, and Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement for energy-adjusted macronutrient intakes. The association between the EatWellQ8 FFQ and PFFQ varied, with crude unadjusted correlations ranging from 0.42 to 0.73 (mean r=0.46, SD 0.12; 95% CI −0.02 to 0.84; P=.046). Mean cross-classification into exact agreement plus adjacent was 84% for nutrient intake and 74% for food groups. Bland-Altman plots showed moderate agreement for both energy and energy-controlled nutrient intakes. Crude unadjusted correlations for the EatWellQ8 FFQ and the 4-day WFR ranged from 0.40 to 0.88 (mean r=0.58, SD 0.13; 95% CI 0.01-0.58; P=.01). Mean cross-classification into exact agreement plus adjacent was 85% for nutrient intake and 83% for food groups. Bland-Altman plots showed moderate agreement for energy-adjusted macronutrient intakes. ConclusionsThe results indicate that the web-based EatWellQ8 FFQ is reproducible for assessing nutrient and food group intake and has moderate agreement compared with a PFFQ and a 4-day WFR for measuring energy and nutrient intakes.

BackgroundNutrition-related apps are commonly used to provide information about the user’s dietary intake, but limited research has been performed to assess how well their outputs agree with those from standard methods. ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to evaluate the level of agreement of popular nutrition-related apps for the assessment of energy and available macronutrients and micronutrients against a UK reference method. MethodsWe compared dietary analysis of 24-hour weighed food records (n=20) between 5 nutrition-related apps (Samsung Health, MyFitnessPal, FatSecret, Noom Coach, and Lose It!) and Dietplan6 (reference method), using app versions available in the United Kingdom. We compared estimates of energy, macronutrients (carbohydrate, protein, fat, saturated fat, and fiber), and micronutrients (sodium, calcium, iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C) using paired t tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots. We obtained 24-hour weighed food records from 20 participants (15 female, 5 male participants; mean age 36.3 years; mean body mass index 22.9 kg/m2) from previous controlled studies conducted at the Hugh Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition, University of Reading, Reading, UK. Participants had recorded their food consumption over a 24-hour period using standard protocols. ResultsThe difference in estimation of energy and saturated fat intake between Dietplan6 and the diet apps was not significant. Estimates of protein and sodium intake were significantly lower using Lose It! and FatSecret than using Dietplan6. Lose It! also gave significantly lower estimates for other reported outputs (carbohydrate, fat, fiber, and sodium) than did Dietplan6. Samsung Health and MyFitnessPal significantly underestimated calcium, iron, and vitamin C compared with Dietplan6, although there was no significant difference for vitamin A. We observed no other significant differences between Dietplan6 and the apps. Correlation coefficients ranged from r=–.12 for iron (Samsung Health vs Dietplan6) to r=.91 for protein (FatSecret vs Dietplan6). Noom Coach was limited to energy output, but it had a high correlation with Dietplan6 (r=.91). Samsung Health had the greatest variation of correlation, with energy at r=.79. Bland-Altman analysis revealed potential proportional bias for vitamin A. ConclusionsThe findings suggest that the apps provide estimates of energy and saturated fat intake comparable with estimates by Dietplan6. With the exception of Lose It!, the apps also provided comparable estimates of carbohydrate, total fat, and fiber. FatSecret and Lose It! tended to underestimate protein and sodium. Estimates of micronutrient intake (calcium, iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C) by 2 apps (Samsung Health and MyFitnessPal) were inconsistent and less reliable. Lose It! was the app least comparable with Dietplan6. As the use and availability of apps grows, this study helps clinicians and researchers to make better-informed decisions about using these apps in research and practice.

BackgroundA key challenge in human nutrition is the assessment of usual food intake. This is of particular interest given recent proposals of eHealth personalized interventions. The adoption of mobile phones has created an opportunity for assessing and improving nutrient intake as they can be used for digitalizing dietary assessments and providing feedback. In the last few years, hundreds of nutrition-related mobile apps have been launched and installed by millions of users. ObjectiveThis study aims to analyze the main features of the most popular nutrition apps and to compare their strategies and technologies for dietary assessment and user feedback. MethodsApps were selected from the two largest online stores of the most popular mobile operating systems—the Google Play Store for Android and the iTunes App Store for iOS—based on popularity as measured by the number of installs and reviews. The keywords used in the search were as follows: calorie(s), diet, diet tracker, dietician, dietitian, eating, fit, fitness, food, food diary, food tracker, health, lose weight, nutrition, nutritionist, weight, weight loss, weight management, weight watcher, and ww calculator. The inclusion criteria were as follows: English language, minimum number of installs (1 million for Google Play Store) or reviews (7500 for iTunes App Store), relation to nutrition (ie, diet monitoring or recommendation), and independence from any device (eg, wearable) or subscription. ResultsA total of 13 apps were classified as popular for inclusion in the analysis. Nine apps offered prospective recording of food intake using a food diary feature. Food selection was available via text search or barcode scanner technologies. Portion size selection was only textual (ie, without images or icons). All nine of these apps were also capable of collecting physical activity (PA) information using self-report, the global positioning system (GPS), or wearable integrations. Their outputs focused predominantly on energy balance between dietary intake and PA. None of these nine apps offered features directly related to diet plans and motivational coaching. In contrast, the remaining four of the 13 apps focused on these opportunities, but without food diaries. One app—FatSecret—also had an innovative feature for connecting users with health professionals, and another—S Health—provided a nutrient balance score. ConclusionsThe high number of installs indicates that there is a clear interest and opportunity for diet monitoring and recommendation using mobile apps. All the apps collecting dietary intake used the same nutrition assessment method (ie, food diary record) and technologies for data input (ie, text search and barcode scanner). Emerging technologies, such as image recognition, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence, were not identified. None of the apps had a decision engine capable of providing personalized diet advice.

BackgroundAdvances in nutritional assessment are continuing to embrace developments in computer technology. The online Food4Me food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was created as an electronic system for the collection of nutrient intake data. To ensure its accuracy in assessing both nutrient and food group intake, further validation against data obtained using a reliable, but independent, instrument and assessment of its reproducibility are required. ObjectiveThe aim was to assess the reproducibility and validity of the Food4Me FFQ against a 4-day weighed food record (WFR). MethodsReproducibility of the Food4Me FFQ was assessed using test-retest methodology by asking participants to complete the FFQ on 2 occasions 4 weeks apart. To assess the validity of the Food4Me FFQ against the 4-day WFR, half the participants were also asked to complete a 4-day WFR 1 week after the first administration of the Food4Me FFQ. Level of agreement between nutrient and food group intakes estimated by the repeated Food4Me FFQ and the Food4Me FFQ and 4-day WFR were evaluated using Bland-Altman methodology and classification into quartiles of daily intake. Crude unadjusted correlation coefficients were also calculated for nutrient and food group intakes. ResultsIn total, 100 people participated in the assessment of reproducibility (mean age 32, SD 12 years), and 49 of these (mean age 27, SD 8 years) also took part in the assessment of validity. Crude unadjusted correlations for repeated Food4Me FFQ ranged from .65 (vitamin D) to .90 (alcohol). The mean cross-classification into “exact agreement plus adjacent” was 92% for both nutrient and food group intakes, and Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement for energy-adjusted macronutrient intakes. Agreement between the Food4Me FFQ and 4-day WFR varied, with crude unadjusted correlations ranging from .23 (vitamin D) to .65 (protein, % total energy) for nutrient intakes and .11 (soups, sauces and miscellaneous foods) to .73 (yogurts) for food group intake. The mean cross-classification into “exact agreement plus adjacent” was 80% and 78% for nutrient and food group intake, respectively. There were no significant differences between energy intakes estimated using the Food4Me FFQ and 4-day WFR, and Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement for both energy and energy-controlled nutrient intakes. ConclusionsThe results demonstrate that the online Food4Me FFQ is reproducible for assessing nutrient and food group intake and has moderate agreement with the 4-day WFR for assessing energy and energy-adjusted nutrient intakes. The Food4Me FFQ is a suitable online tool for assessing dietary intake in healthy adults.

BackgroundDietary assessment methods are important tools for nutrition research. Online dietary assessment tools have the potential to become invaluable methods of assessing dietary intake because, compared with traditional methods, they have many advantages including the automatic storage of input data and the immediate generation of nutritional outputs. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop an online food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) for dietary data collection in the “Food4Me” study and to compare this with the validated European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk printed FFQ. MethodsThe Food4Me FFQ used in this analysis was developed to consist of 157 food items. Standardized color photographs were incorporated in the development of the Food4Me FFQ to facilitate accurate quantification of the portion size of each food item. Participants were recruited in two centers (Dublin, Ireland and Reading, United Kingdom) and each received the online Food4Me FFQ and the printed EPIC-Norfolk FFQ in random order. Participants completed the Food4Me FFQ online and, for most food items, participants were requested to choose their usual serving size among seven possibilities from a range of portion size pictures. The level of agreement between the two methods was evaluated for both nutrient and food group intakes using the Bland and Altman method and classification into quartiles of daily intake. Correlations were calculated for nutrient and food group intakes. ResultsA total of 113 participants were recruited with a mean age of 30 (SD 10) years (40.7% male, 46/113; 59.3%, 67/113 female). Cross-classification into exact plus adjacent quartiles ranged from 77% to 97% at the nutrient level and 77% to 99% at the food group level. Agreement at the nutrient level was highest for alcohol (97%) and lowest for percent energy from polyunsaturated fatty acids (77%). Crude unadjusted correlations for nutrients ranged between .43 and .86. Agreement at the food group level was highest for “other fruits” (eg, apples, pears, oranges) and lowest for “cakes, pastries, and buns”. For food groups, correlations ranged between .41 and .90. ConclusionsThe results demonstrate that the online Food4Me FFQ has good agreement with the validated printed EPIC-Norfolk FFQ for assessing both nutrient and food group intakes, rendering it a useful tool for ranking individuals based on nutrient and food group intakes.

Diet quality indexes (DQI) are useful tools for assessing diet quality in relation to health and guiding delivery of personalised nutritional advice; however, existing DQI are limited in their applicability to older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). Therefore, this research aimed to develop a novel evidence-based DQI specific to older adults (DQI-65). Three DQI-65 variations were developed to assess the impacts of different component quantitation methods and inclusion of physical activity. These were Nutrient and Food-based DQI-65 (NFDQI-65), NFDQI-65 with Physical Activity (NFDQI-65+PA) and Food-based DQI-65 with Physical Activity (FDQI-65+PA). To assess their individual efficacy, the NFDQI-65, NFDQI-65+PA and FDQI-65+PA were explored alongside the validated Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) and Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010) using data from the cross-sectional UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) rolling programme. Scores for DQI-65 variations, the HEI-2015 and AHEI-2010 were calculated for adults ≥ 65 years from years 2–6 of the NDNS (n 871). Associations with nutrient intake, nutrient status and health markers were analysed using linear and logistic regression. Higher DQI-65 and HEI-2015 scores were associated with increased odds of meeting almost all our previously proposed age-specific nutritional recommendations, and with important health markers of importance for older adults, including lower BMI, lower medication use and lower C-reactive protein (P < 0·01). Few associations were observed for the AHEI-2010. This analysis suggests value of all three DQI-65 as measures of dietary quality in UK older adults. However, methodological limitations mean further investigations are required to assess validity and reliability of the DQI-65. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effect of personalised nutrition advice on discretionary foods intake is unknown. To date, two national classifications for discretionary foods have been derived. This study examined changes in intake of discretionary foods and beverages following a personalised nutrition intervention using these two classifications. Methods: Participants were recruited into a 6-month RCT across seven European countries (Food4Me) and were randomised to receive generalised dietary advice (control) or one of three levels of personalised nutrition advice (based on diet [L1], phenotype [L2] and genotype [L3]). Dietary intake was derived from an FFQ. An analysis of covariance was used to determine intervention effects at month 6 between personalised nutrition (overall and by levels) and control on i) percentage energy from discretionary items and ii) percentage contribution of total fat, SFA, total sugars and salt to discretionary intake, defined by Food Standards Scotland (FSS) and Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) classifications. Results: Of the 1607 adults at baseline, n = 1270 (57% female) completed the intervention. Percentage sugars from FSS discretionary items was lower in personalised nutrition vs control (19.0 ± 0.37 vs 21.1 ± 0.65; P = 0.005). Percentage energy (31.2 ± 0.59 vs 32.7 ± 0.59; P = 0.031), percentage total fat (31.5 ± 0.37 vs 33.3 ± 0.65; P = 0.021), SFA (36.0 ± 0.43 vs 37.8 ± 0.75; P = 0.034) and sugars (31.7 ± 0.44 vs 34.7 ± 0.78; P < 0.001) from ADG discretionary items were lower in personalised nutrition vs control. There were greater reductions in ADG percentage energy and percentage total fat, SFA and salt for those randomised to L3 vs L2. Conclusions: Compared with generalised dietary advice, personalised nutrition advice achieved greater reductions in discretionary foods intake when the classification included all foods high in fat, added sugars and salt. Future personalised nutrition approaches may be used to target intake of discretionary foods. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01530139. Registered 9 February 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]