↓ Skip to main content

University of Newcastle, Australia

Self-Monitoring of Dietary Intake by Young Women: Online Food Records Completed on Computer or Smartphone Are as Accurate as Paper-Based Food Records but More Acceptable

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, September 2014
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
228 Mendeley
Title
Self-Monitoring of Dietary Intake by Young Women: Online Food Records Completed on Computer or Smartphone Are as Accurate as Paper-Based Food Records but More Acceptable
Published in
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, September 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jand.2014.07.036
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melinda J. Hutchesson, Megan E. Rollo, Robin Callister, Clare E. Collins

Abstract

Adherence and accuracy of self-monitoring of dietary intake influences success in weight management interventions. Information technologies such as computers and smartphones have the potential to improve adherence and accuracy by reducing the burden associated with monitoring dietary intake using traditional paper-based food records. We evaluated the acceptability and accuracy of three different 7-day food record methods (online accessed via computer, online accessed via smartphone, and paper-based). Young women (N=18; aged 23.4±2.9 years; body mass index 24.0±2.2) completed the three 7-day food records in random order with 7-day washout periods between each method. Total energy expenditure (TEE) was derived from resting energy expenditure (REE) measured by indirect calorimetry and physical activity level (PAL) derived from accelerometers (TEE=REE×PAL). Accuracy of the three methods was assessed by calculating absolute (energy intake [EI]-TEE) and percentage difference (EI/TEE×100) between self-reported EI and TEE. Acceptability was assessed via questionnaire. Mean±standard deviation TEE was 2,185±302 kcal/day and EI was 1,729±249 kcal/day, 1,675±287kcal/day, and 1,682±352 kcal/day for computer, smartphone, and paper records, respectively. There were no significant differences between absolute and percentage differences between EI and TEE for the three methods: computer, -510±389 kcal/day (78%); smartphone, -456±372 kcal/day (80%); and paper, -503±513 kcal/day (79%). Half of participants (n=9) preferred computer recording, 44.4% preferred smartphone, and 5.6% preferred paper-based records. Most participants (89%) least preferred the paper-based record. Because online food records completed on either computer or smartphone were as accurate as paper-based records but more acceptable to young women, they should be considered when self-monitoring of intake is recommended to young women.

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 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 221 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 13%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 39 17%
Unknown 38 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 13%
Computer Science 20 9%
Sports and Recreations 18 8%
Social Sciences 16 7%
Other 49 21%
Unknown 51 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 05 January 2015.
All research outputs
#1,710,324
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#616
of 3,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,528
of 263,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#6
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 263,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.