Assessment of dietary intake using food photography and video recording in free-living young adults: a comparative study

Naaman, R., Parrett, A. , Bashawri, D., Campo, I., Fleming, K., Nichols, B., Burleigh, E., Murtagh, J., Reid, J. and Gerasimidis, K. (2021) Assessment of dietary intake using food photography and video recording in free-living young adults: a comparative study. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 121(4), 749-761.e1. (doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2020.09.040) (PMID:33187931)

[img] Text
223601.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

1MB

Abstract

Background: Conventional methods of dietary assessment are prone to recall bias and place burden on participants. Objective: Our aim was to compare the performance of image-based dietary assessment (IBDA), including food photography (FP) and video recording (VR), with the criterion of weighed food records (WFR). Design: In this comparative study, participants captured meals using FP and VR before and after consumption, over 2 days. Food type and portion size were assessed using the images and videos. Energy and nutrient intakes (mean of 2 days) were compared against WFR. Participants/settings: Eighty-four healthy adults (mean [standard deviation] age = 29 [8] years), recruited through advertisement in Glasgow, UK, between January and August 2016 were enrolled in the study. Eighty participants (95%) (mean [standard deviation] age = 28 [7] years) completed the study and were included in the analysis. Main outcome measures: Agreement in estimated energy and nutrient intake between WFR and IBDA. The IBDA method feasibility was evaluated using a questionnaire. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were assessed. Statistical analysis performed: The performance of the IBDA methods against WFR and their inter and intra-rater reliability were tested with Bland-Altman plots and Spearman correlations. Intra-class agreement between methods was assessed using κ statistics. Results: Inter-rater reliability was strong for both IBDA methods in estimating energy intake (ρ-coefficients: FP = 0.80; VR = 0.81). There was no difference in the agreement between the 2 assessors. Intra-rater reliability was high. FP and VR underestimated energy intake by a mean (95% agreement limits) of –13.3% (–56.4% and 29.7%) and –4.5% (–45.5% and 36.4%), respectively. IBDA demonstrated moderate-to-strong correlations in nutrient intake ranking, median ρ-coefficients for all nutrients: FP = 0.73 (interquartile range, 0.09) and VR = 0.82 (interquartile range, 0.02). Inter-class agreement of IBDA methods was moderate compared with the WFR in energy intake estimation. IBDA was more practical and enjoyable than WFR. Conclusions: IBDA and VR in particular demonstrated a moderate-to-strong ability to rank participants’ dietary intake, and considerable group and inter-class agreement compared with the WFR. However, IBDA was found to be unsuitable for assessment in individuals.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:NAAMAN, Roba Khalil and Nichols, Mr Ben and Gerasimidis, Professor Konstantinos and Parrett, Dr Alison
Authors: Naaman, R., Parrett, A., Bashawri, D., Campo, I., Fleming, K., Nichols, B., Burleigh, E., Murtagh, J., Reid, J., and Gerasimidis, K.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing
Journal Name:Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:2212-2672
ISSN (Online):2212-2680
Published Online:10 November 2020
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2020 by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
First Published:First published in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 121(4): 749-761.e1
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons license

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record

Project CodeAward NoProject NamePrincipal InvestigatorFunder's NameFunder RefLead Dept
300280The Role of Dietary D-serine in Health and DiseaseAndrew RoeBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)BB/R006539/1III - Bacteriology