↓ Skip to main content

University of Newcastle, Australia

A Brief Tool to Assess Image-Based Dietary Records and Guide Nutrition Counselling Among Pregnant Women: An Evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, November 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
A Brief Tool to Assess Image-Based Dietary Records and Guide Nutrition Counselling Among Pregnant Women: An Evaluation
Published in
JMIR mHealth and uHealth, November 2016
DOI 10.2196/mhealth.6469
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy M Ashman, Clare E Collins, Leanne J Brown, Kym M Rae, Megan E Rollo

Abstract

Dietitians ideally should provide personally tailored nutrition advice to pregnant women. Provision is hampered by a lack of appropriate tools for nutrition assessment and counselling in practice settings. Smartphone technology, through the use of image-based dietary records, can address limitations of traditional methods of recording dietary intake. Feedback on these records can then be provided by the dietitian via smartphone. Efficacy and validity of these methods requires examination. The aims of the Australian Diet Bytes and Baby Bumps study, which used image-based dietary records and a purpose-built brief Selected Nutrient and Diet Quality (SNaQ) tool to provide tailored nutrition advice to pregnant women, were to assess relative validity of the SNaQ tool for analyzing dietary intake compared with nutrient analysis software, to describe the nutritional intake adequacy of pregnant participants, and to assess acceptability of dietary feedback via smartphone. Eligible women used a smartphone app to record everything they consumed over 3 nonconsecutive days. Records consisted of an image of the food or drink item placed next to a fiducial marker, with a voice or text description, or both, providing additional detail. We used the SNaQ tool to analyze participants' intake of daily food group servings and selected key micronutrients for pregnancy relative to Australian guideline recommendations. A visual reference guide consisting of images of foods and drinks in standard serving sizes assisted the dietitian with quantification. Feedback on participants' diets was provided via 2 methods: (1) a short video summary sent to participants' smartphones, and (2) a follow-up telephone consultation with a dietitian. Agreement between dietary intake assessment using the SNaQ tool and nutrient analysis software was evaluated using Spearman rank correlation and Cohen kappa. We enrolled 27 women (median age 28.8 years, 8 Indigenous Australians, 15 primiparas), of whom 25 completed the image-based dietary record. Median intakes of grains, vegetables, fruit, meat, and dairy were below recommendations. Median (interquartile range) intake of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods was 3.5 (2.4-3.9) servings/day and exceeded recommendations (0-2.5 servings/day). Positive correlations between the SNaQ tool and nutrient analysis software were observed for energy (ρ=.898, P<.001) and all selected micronutrients (iron, calcium, zinc, folate, and iodine, ρ range .510-.955, all P<.05), both with and without vitamin and mineral supplements included in the analysis. Cohen kappa showed moderate to substantial agreement for selected micronutrients when supplements were included (kappa range .488-.803, all P ≤.001) and for calcium, iodine, and zinc when excluded (kappa range .554-.632, all P<.001). A total of 17 women reported changing their diet as a result of the personalized nutrition advice. The SNaQ tool demonstrated acceptable validity for assessing adequacy of key pregnancy nutrient intakes and preliminary evidence of utility to support dietitians in providing women with personalized advice to optimize nutrition during pregnancy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Researcher 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 39 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Psychology 4 4%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 42 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 10 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,701,009
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from JMIR mHealth and uHealth
#537
of 2,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,935
of 313,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JMIR mHealth and uHealth
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 313,278 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 53% of its contemporaries.