Evaluating the Validity of the PortionSize Smartphone Application for Estimating Dietary Intake in Free-Living Conditions: A Pilot Study

IF 2.3 3区医学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jneb.2024.05.226

{"title":"Evaluating the Validity of the PortionSize Smartphone Application for Estimating Dietary Intake in Free-Living Conditions: A Pilot Study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jneb.2024.05.226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Evaluate the validity of the PortionSize application.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this pilot study, 14 adults used PortionSize to record their free-living food intake over 3 consecutive days. Digital photography was the criterion measure, and the main outcomes were estimated intake of food (grams), energy (kilocalories), and food groups. Equivalence tests with ±25% equivalence bounds and Bland-Altman analysis were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Estimated gram intake from PortionSize was equivalent (<em>P</em> < 0.001) to digital photography estimates. PortionSize and digital photography estimated energy intake, however, were not equivalent (<em>P</em> = 0.08), with larger estimates from PortionSize. In addition, PortionSize and digital photography were equivalent for vegetable intake (<em>P</em> = 0.01), but PortionSize had larger estimates of fruits, grains, dairy, and protein intake (<em>P</em> >0.07; error range 11% to 23%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><p>Compared with digital photography, PortionSize accurately estimated food intake and had reasonable error rates for other nutrients; however, it overestimated energy intake, indicating further application improvements are needed for free-living conditions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50107,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404624003269/pdfft?md5=6f2cba1d8e29e8e5dc686ae193abeaa0&pid=1-s2.0-S1499404624003269-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404624003269","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Evaluate the validity of the PortionSize application.

Methods

In this pilot study, 14 adults used PortionSize to record their free-living food intake over 3 consecutive days. Digital photography was the criterion measure, and the main outcomes were estimated intake of food (grams), energy (kilocalories), and food groups. Equivalence tests with ±25% equivalence bounds and Bland-Altman analysis were performed.

Results

Estimated gram intake from PortionSize was equivalent (P < 0.001) to digital photography estimates. PortionSize and digital photography estimated energy intake, however, were not equivalent (P = 0.08), with larger estimates from PortionSize. In addition, PortionSize and digital photography were equivalent for vegetable intake (P = 0.01), but PortionSize had larger estimates of fruits, grains, dairy, and protein intake (P >0.07; error range 11% to 23%).

Conclusions and Implications

Compared with digital photography, PortionSize accurately estimated food intake and had reasonable error rates for other nutrients; however, it overestimated energy intake, indicating further application improvements are needed for free-living conditions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估用于估算自由生活条件下膳食摄入量的 PortionSize 智能手机应用程序的有效性：试点研究。

目标：评估 PortionSize 应用程序的有效性：评估 PortionSize 应用程序的有效性：在这项试点研究中，14 名成年人使用 PortionSize 记录了他们连续 3 天的自由生活食物摄入量。数码照片是衡量标准，主要结果是估计的食物摄入量（克）、能量（千卡）和食物种类。采用±25%等效界限进行等效测试，并进行布兰-阿尔特曼分析：结果：PortionSize 估算的克摄入量与数码摄影估算的克摄入量相当（P < 0.001）。然而，PortionSize 和数码摄影估计的能量摄入量并不等同（P = 0.08），PortionSize 估计的能量摄入量更大。此外，在蔬菜摄入量方面，PortionSize 和数码摄影的估计值相当（P = 0.01），但在水果、谷物、乳制品和蛋白质摄入量方面，PortionSize 的估计值更大（P >0.07；误差范围为 11% 至 23%）：与数码摄影相比，PortionSize 能准确估计食物摄入量，对其他营养素的误差率也比较合理；但它高估了能量摄入量，这表明在自由生活条件下需要进一步改进应用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 医学-学科教育

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

11.50%

发文量

379

审稿时长

44 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior (JNEB), the official journal of the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior, is a refereed, scientific periodical that serves as a global resource for all professionals with an interest in nutrition education; nutrition and physical activity behavior theories and intervention outcomes; complementary and alternative medicine related to nutrition behaviors; food environment; food, nutrition, and physical activity communication strategies including technology; nutrition-related economics; food safety education; and scholarship of learning related to these areas. The purpose of JNEB is to document and disseminate original research and emerging issues and practices relevant to these areas worldwide. The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior welcomes evidence-based manuscripts that provide new insights and useful findings related to nutrition education research, practice and policy. The content areas of JNEB reflect the diverse interests in nutrition and physical activity related to public health, nutritional sciences, education, behavioral economics, family and consumer sciences, and eHealth, including the interests of community-based nutrition-practitioners. As the Society''s official journal, JNEB also includes policy statements, issue perspectives, position papers, and member communications.