Abstract
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.
Highlights
Several factors affect the suitability of different methods of ingestive behavior assessment in specific study designs, clinical settings, and populations
We hypothesized that for both food intake and alcohol consumption, the Remote Food Photography Method© (RFPM)/SmartIntake® and PortionSize® would be rated as more preferred than the traditional methods and that the RFPM/SmartIntake® would be perceived as less burdensome and more preferred compared to PortionSize®, which requires participants to estimate and report their portion size
The RFPM/SmartIntake® was rated as the preferred method by the largest percentage of participants (67.3%), while the 24 h recall was rated as the preferred method by the smallest percentage of participants (32.9%)
Summary
Several factors affect the suitability of different methods of ingestive behavior assessment in specific study designs, clinical settings, and populations. Reproducibility, usability, and feasibility of the selected method in the target population and data collection setting are indispensable for the collection of high-quality data on ingestive behavior. Participants’ preference as well as the acceptability and perceived burden of a specific method can play an important role in collecting high-quality data. In a cross-over study, 78% of participants preferred using the online version of a food record compared to 13% who preferred the pen-and-paper record (9% had no preference) after having used each method for 7 days. Collecting data online or via an app offers some additional advantages compared to pen-and-paper methods, including the ability for data to be transferred in real time
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.
