↓ Skip to main content

The Development, Validation, and User Evaluation of Foodbook24: A Web-Based Dietary Assessment Tool Developed for the Irish Adult Population

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Development, Validation, and User Evaluation of Foodbook24: A Web-Based Dietary Assessment Tool Developed for the Irish Adult Population
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, May 2017
DOI 10.2196/jmir.6407
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire M Timon, Richard J Blain, Breige McNulty, Laura Kehoe, Katie Evans, Janette Walton, Albert Flynn, Eileen R Gibney

Abstract

The application of technology in the area of dietary assessment has resulted in the development of an array of tools, which are often specifically designed for a particular country or region. The aim of this study was to describe the development, validation, and user evaluation of a Web-based dietary assessment tool "Foodbook24." Foodbook24 is a Web-based, dietary assessment tool consisting of a 24-hour dietary recall (24HDR) and food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) alongside supplementary questionnaires. Validity of the 24HDR component was assessed by 40 participants, who completed 3 nonconsecutive, self-administered 24HDR using Foodbook24 and a 4-day semi-weighed food diary at separate time points. Participants also provided fasted blood samples and 24-hour urine collections for the identification of biomarkers of nutrient and food group intake during each recording period. Statistical analyses on the nutrient and food group intake data derived from each method were performed in SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc). Mean nutrient intakes (and standard deviations) recorded using each method of dietary assessment were calculated. Spearman and Pearson correlations, Wilcoxon Signed Rank and Paired t test were used to investigate the agreement and differences between the nutritional output from Foodbook24 (test method) and the 4-day semi-weighed food diary (reference method). Urinary and plasma biomarkers of nutrient intake were used as an objective validation of Foodbook24. To investigate the user acceptability of Foodbook24, participants from different studies involved with Foodbook24 were asked to complete an evaluation questionnaire. For nutrient intake, correlations between the dietary assessment methods were acceptable to very good in strength and statistically significant (range r=.32 to .75). There were some significant differences between reported mean intakes of micronutrients recorded by both methods; however, with the exception of protein (P=.03), there were no significant differences in the reporting of energy or macronutrient intake. Of the 19 food groups investigated in this analysis, there were significant differences between 6 food groups reported by both methods. Spearman correlations for biomarkers of nutrient and food group intake and reported intake were similar for both methods. A total of 118 participants evaluated the acceptability of Foodbook24. The tool was well-received and the majority, 67.8% (80/118), opted for Foodbook24 as the preferred method for future dietary intake assessment when compared against a traditional interviewer led recall and semi-weighed food diary. The results of this study demonstrate the validity and user acceptability of Foodbook24. The results also highlight the potential of Foodbook24, a Web-based dietary assessment method, and present a viable alternative to nutritional surveillance in Ireland.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Master 11 12%
Other 7 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Computer Science 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 22 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,396,537
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#2,003
of 7,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,501
of 325,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#59
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.