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.

doi:10.3390/nu13103340

Title:: Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake
Document type:: Zeitschriftenaufsatz
Author(s):: Höchsmann, Christoph; Fearnbach, Nicole; Dorling, James L.; Fazzino, Tera L.; Myers, Candice A.; Apolzan, John W.; Martin, Corby K.
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.
Journal title:: Nutrients
Year:: 2021
Journal volume:: 13
Journal issue:: 10
Pages contribution:: 3340
Fulltext / DOI:: doi:10.3390/nu13103340
Pubmed ID:: http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34684341
Publisher:: MDPI AG
E-ISSN:: 2072-6643
Impact Factor:: 6,706
Scimago Quartil:: Q1
Submitted:: 18.08.2021
Accepted:: 20.09.2021
Date of publication:: 24.09.2021
BibTeX