Abstract
Two web-based dietary assessment tools have been developed for use in large-scale studies: the Riksmaten method (4-d food record) and MiniMeal-Q (food-frequency method). The aim of the present study was to examine the ability of these methods to capture energy intake against objectively measured total energy expenditure (TEE) with the doubly labelled water technique (TEEDLW), and to compare reported energy and macronutrient intake. This study was conducted within the pilot study of the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS), which included 1111 randomly selected men and women aged 50-64 years from the Gothenburg general population. Of these, 200 were enrolled in the SCAPIS diet substudy. TEEDLW was measured in a subsample (n 40). Compared with TEEDLW, both methods underestimated energy intake: -2·5 (sd 2·9)MJ with the Riksmaten method; -2·3 (sd 3·6)MJ with MiniMeal-Q. Mean reporting accuracy was 80 and 82%, respectively. The correlation between reported energy intake and TEEDLW was r 0·4 for the Riksmaten method (P<0·05) and r 0·28 (non-significant) for MiniMeal-Q. Women reported similar average intake of energy and macronutrients in both methods whereas men reported higher intakes with the Riksmaten method. Energy-adjusted correlations ranged from 0·14 (polyunsaturated fat) to 0·77 (alcohol). Bland-Altman plots showed acceptable agreement for energy and energy-adjusted protein and carbohydrate intake, whereas the agreement for fat intake was poorer. According to energy intake data, both methods displayed similar precision on energy intake reporting. However, MiniMeal-Q was less successful in ranking individuals than the Riksmaten method. The development of methods to achieve limited under-reporting is a major challenge for future research.
Highlights
Two web-based dietary assessment tools have been developed for use in large-scale studies: the Riksmaten method (4-d food record) and MiniMeal-Q
Food records are time consuming for both participants and staff and are expensive to administer in large-scale studies, and there is the possibility that participants might deviate from their normal eating habits during the recording days
No statistically significant differences could be found between the whole study population (n 200) and the subgroup participating in doubly labelled water (DLW) analyses (n 40) on the background characteristics evaluated
Summary
Two web-based dietary assessment tools have been developed for use in large-scale studies: the Riksmaten method (4-d food record) and MiniMeal-Q (food-frequency method). The correlation between reported energy intake and TEEDLW was r 0·4 for the Riksmaten method (P < 0·05) and r 0·28 (non-significant) for MiniMeal-Q. There are many advantages with collecting data via the web compared with using traditional paper-based methods It is easy for the study participants to access the questionnaire at any time and location, and time is saved when the participants enter their information themselves. The rapid improvements in advanced technology could potentially improve the quality of collected dietary data, and one major challenge lies in the development of methods that manage to minimise under-reporting of dietary intake. Only a few web-based dietary assessment tools have been validated against objectively measured energy expenditure using the ‘gold standard’, doubly labelled water (DLW) technique
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
