↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of a commercial smartphone application for dietary assessment in epidemiological research and comparison with 24-h dietary recalls

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Feasibility of a commercial smartphone application for dietary assessment in epidemiological research and comparison with 24-h dietary recalls
Published in
Nutrition Journal, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12937-018-0315-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gina L. Ambrosini, Miriam Hurworth, Roslyn Giglia, Gina Trapp, Penelope Strauss

Abstract

Dietary assessment methods that can provide high quality data while limiting participant burden and resource requirements in epidemiological research are highly sought after and continue to evolve. The use of mobile phone technology in research has increased rapidly over the last decade and offers multiple advantages to the researcher over traditional data collection methods. This study tested the acceptability and relative validity of a commercial smart phone application (app) for use as an epidemiological dietary assessment tool, compared with a traditional dietary assessment method. Study participants completed a 4-d food diary using a modified version of the Easy Diet Diary app and two 24-h dietary recalls during the same week, for comparison. At the end of data collection, participants completed a questionnaire on their experience with both methods. Average proportions of energy from macronutrients and fibre, iron, and calcium densities from the app and 24-h recalls were compared after log transformation, by calculating mean agreement, limits of agreement (LOA), and Pearson's correlations. The prevalence of dietary under-reporting was compared in each method using the Goldberg method. A total of 50 adults (82% women) provided data for analysis (mean age, 31 y; mean BMI, 22.4 kg/m2; 14% overweight or obese). Participant feedback showed high levels of acceptance of the app; 83% preferred using the app to completing 24-h dietary recalls. The average difference in energy intake (mean agreement) between methods was 268 kJ/d. For all intakes except alcohol, the average difference between methods was not significantly different from zero. Most limits of agreement were within an acceptable range. The prevalence of dietary misreporting was similar in both methods. These findings demonstrate good feasibility for applying this commercially-developed smartphone app in epidemiological research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Psychology 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 21 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,233,627
of 14,157,783 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#499
of 1,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,234
of 397,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#28
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,157,783 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 397,360 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 62% of its contemporaries.