| Title |
A comparison of food portion size estimation by older adults, young adults and nutritionists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The journal of nutrition, health & aging, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12603-017-0937-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Marie Timon, S.E. Cooper, M.E. Barker, A.J. Astell, T. Adlam, F. Hwang, E.A. Williams |
| Abstract |
To investigate the ability of older adults, younger adults and nutritionists to assess portion size using traditional methods versus a computer-based method. This was to inform the development of a novel dietary assessment method for older adults "The NANA system". Older and younger adults assessed the portion size of self-served portions of foods from a buffet style set up using traditional and computerised portion size assessment aids. Nutritionists assessed the portion size of foods from digital photographs using computerised portion size aids. These estimates were compared to known weights of foods using univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVA). The University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. Forty older adults (aged 65 years and over), 41 younger adults (aged between 18 and 40 years) and 25 nutritionists. There was little difference in the abilities of older and younger adults to assess portion size using both assessment aids with the exception of small pieces morphology. Even though the methods were not directly comparable among the test groups, there was less variability in portion size estimates made by the nutritionists. Older adults and younger adults are similar in their ability to assess food portion size and demonstrate wide variability of estimation compared to the ability of nutritionists to estimate portion size from photographs. The results suggest that the use of photographs of meals consumed for portion size assessment by a nutritionist may improve the accuracy of dietary assessment. Improved portion size assessment aids are required for all age groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Psychology | 7 | 9% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,307,224
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#1,027
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,690
of 451,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#31
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 451,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 50% of its contemporaries.