Assessment of Dietary Intake Using Food Photography and Video Recording in Free-Living Young Adults: A Comparative Study.
Dietary assessment
Food photography
Image-based dietary assessment
Video recording
Weighed food records
Journal
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
ISSN: 2212-2672
Titre abrégé: J Acad Nutr Diet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101573920
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
30
07
2019
revised:
09
09
2020
accepted:
25
09
2020
pubmed:
15
11
2020
medline:
3
9
2021
entrez:
14
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Conventional methods of dietary assessment are prone to recall bias and place burden on participants. Our aim was to compare the performance of image-based dietary assessment (IBDA), including food photography (FP) and video recording (VR), with the criterion of weighed food records (WFR). In this comparative study, participants captured meals using FP and VR before and after consumption, over 2 days. Food type and portion size were assessed using the images and videos. Energy and nutrient intakes (mean of 2 days) were compared against WFR. Eighty-four healthy adults (mean [standard deviation] age = 29 [8] years), recruited through advertisement in Glasgow, UK, between January and August 2016 were enrolled in the study. Eighty participants (95%) (mean [standard deviation] age = 28 [7] years) completed the study and were included in the analysis. Agreement in estimated energy and nutrient intake between WFR and IBDA. The IBDA method feasibility was evaluated using a questionnaire. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were assessed. The performance of the IBDA methods against WFR and their inter and intra-rater reliability were tested with Bland-Altman plots and Spearman correlations. Intra-class agreement between methods was assessed using κ statistics. Inter-rater reliability was strong for both IBDA methods in estimating energy intake (ρ-coefficients: FP = 0.80; VR = 0.81). There was no difference in the agreement between the 2 assessors. Intra-rater reliability was high. FP and VR underestimated energy intake by a mean (95% agreement limits) of -13.3% (-56.4% and 29.7%) and -4.5% (-45.5% and 36.4%), respectively. IBDA demonstrated moderate-to-strong correlations in nutrient intake ranking, median ρ-coefficients for all nutrients: FP = 0.73 (interquartile range, 0.09) and VR = 0.82 (interquartile range, 0.02). Inter-class agreement of IBDA methods was moderate compared with the WFR in energy intake estimation. IBDA was more practical and enjoyable than WFR. IBDA and VR in particular demonstrated a moderate-to-strong ability to rank participants' dietary intake, and considerable group and inter-class agreement compared with the WFR. However, IBDA was found to be unsuitable for assessment in individuals.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Conventional methods of dietary assessment are prone to recall bias and place burden on participants.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to compare the performance of image-based dietary assessment (IBDA), including food photography (FP) and video recording (VR), with the criterion of weighed food records (WFR).
DESIGN
In this comparative study, participants captured meals using FP and VR before and after consumption, over 2 days. Food type and portion size were assessed using the images and videos. Energy and nutrient intakes (mean of 2 days) were compared against WFR.
PARTICIPANTS/SETTINGS
Eighty-four healthy adults (mean [standard deviation] age = 29 [8] years), recruited through advertisement in Glasgow, UK, between January and August 2016 were enrolled in the study. Eighty participants (95%) (mean [standard deviation] age = 28 [7] years) completed the study and were included in the analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Agreement in estimated energy and nutrient intake between WFR and IBDA. The IBDA method feasibility was evaluated using a questionnaire. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were assessed.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED
The performance of the IBDA methods against WFR and their inter and intra-rater reliability were tested with Bland-Altman plots and Spearman correlations. Intra-class agreement between methods was assessed using κ statistics.
RESULTS
Inter-rater reliability was strong for both IBDA methods in estimating energy intake (ρ-coefficients: FP = 0.80; VR = 0.81). There was no difference in the agreement between the 2 assessors. Intra-rater reliability was high. FP and VR underestimated energy intake by a mean (95% agreement limits) of -13.3% (-56.4% and 29.7%) and -4.5% (-45.5% and 36.4%), respectively. IBDA demonstrated moderate-to-strong correlations in nutrient intake ranking, median ρ-coefficients for all nutrients: FP = 0.73 (interquartile range, 0.09) and VR = 0.82 (interquartile range, 0.02). Inter-class agreement of IBDA methods was moderate compared with the WFR in energy intake estimation. IBDA was more practical and enjoyable than WFR.
CONCLUSIONS
IBDA and VR in particular demonstrated a moderate-to-strong ability to rank participants' dietary intake, and considerable group and inter-class agreement compared with the WFR. However, IBDA was found to be unsuitable for assessment in individuals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33187931
pii: S2212-2672(20)31351-4
doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2020.09.040
pmc: PMC7975321
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
749-761.e1Subventions
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BB/R006539/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Nutrients. 2018 Sep 12;10(9):
pubmed: 30213092
Nutrients. 2019 Jan 10;11(1):
pubmed: 30634581
J Am Diet Assoc. 2006 Oct;106(10):1588-93
pubmed: 17000191
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 13;3(1):e30
pubmed: 25775506
Br J Nutr. 2009 Feb;101(3):446-56
pubmed: 18616837
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018 Jun;72(6):879-887
pubmed: 29563639
Proc Nutr Soc. 2017 Aug;76(3):283-294
pubmed: 27938425
Nutrients. 2015 Jun 17;7(6):4897-910
pubmed: 26091234
Psychol Aging. 2006 Jun;21(2):333-52
pubmed: 16768579
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Apr;63(4):491-9
pubmed: 8599311
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Dec;45(12):569-81
pubmed: 1810719
Nutrition. 2005 Jun;21(6):672-7
pubmed: 15925290
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Jan;110(1):48-51
pubmed: 20102826
Public Health Nutr. 2006 Oct;9(7):934-41
pubmed: 17010260
Ann Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;26(1):57-65
pubmed: 26559331
J Am Diet Assoc. 2000 Mar;100(3):303-8; quiz 309-11
pubmed: 10719403
J Nutr Health Aging. 2017;21(6):614-621
pubmed: 28537324
Br J Nutr. 2013 Feb 14;109(3):539-46
pubmed: 22717334
Br J Nutr. 1994 Oct;72(4):619-43
pubmed: 7986792
Food Nutr Res. 2017 Mar 29;61(1):1305193
pubmed: 28469546
Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1985;39 Suppl 1:5-41
pubmed: 4044297
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012 Apr;20(4):891-9
pubmed: 22134199
J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2007 Apr;53(2):109-16
pubmed: 17615997
Public Health Nutr. 2002 Aug;5(4):567-87
pubmed: 12186666
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015 Jan;115(1):64-77
pubmed: 25441955
Food Nutr Res. 2010 Nov 12;54:
pubmed: 21085516
J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Sep;103(9):1139-45
pubmed: 12963941
Public Health Nutr. 2014 Aug;17(8):1671-81
pubmed: 24476848
Br J Nutr. 2011 Apr;105(7):1055-64
pubmed: 21080983
J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2002 Dec;48(6):498-504
pubmed: 12775117
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014 Feb;68(2):259-64
pubmed: 24300904
Br J Nutr. 1994 Nov;72(5):649-63
pubmed: 7826990
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Sep;24(9):1119-30
pubmed: 11033980
Nutr J. 2018 Jan 09;17(1):5
pubmed: 29316930
J Nutr Metab. 2019 Mar 26;2019:9839320
pubmed: 31032116
Br J Nutr. 2016 Jan 28;115(2):294-304
pubmed: 26525591
Br J Nutr. 2009 Jul;101 Suppl 2:S73-85
pubmed: 19594967
Anesth Analg. 2018 May;126(5):1763-1768
pubmed: 29481436
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Br J Nutr. 2009 Jul;101 Suppl 2:S102-12
pubmed: 19594959
Comput Biol Med. 2012 Oct;42(10):964-74
pubmed: 22898338
N Z Med J. 2004 Sep 24;117(1202):U1079
pubmed: 15477912