Development of a UK Online 24-h Dietary Assessment Tool: myfood24

Michelle C Carter, Salwa A Albar, Michelle A Morris, Umme Z Mulla, Neil Hancock, Charlotte E Evans, Nisreen A Alwan, Darren C Greenwood, Laura J Hardie, Gary S Frost, Petra A Wark, Janet E Cade, myfood24 Consortium, Michelle C Carter, Salwa A Albar, Michelle A Morris, Umme Z Mulla, Neil Hancock, Charlotte E Evans, Nisreen A Alwan, Darren C Greenwood, Laura J Hardie, Gary S Frost, Petra A Wark, Janet E Cade, myfood24 Consortium

Abstract

Assessment of diet in large epidemiological studies can be costly and time consuming. An automated dietary assessment system could potentially reduce researcher burden by automatically coding food records. myfood24 (Measure Your Food on One Day) an online 24-h dietary assessment tool (with the flexibility to be used for multiple 24 h-dietary recalls or as a food diary), has been developed for use in the UK population. Development of myfood24 was a multi-stage process. Focus groups conducted with three age groups, adolescents (11-18 years) (n = 28), adults (19-64 years) (n = 24) and older adults (≥ 65 years) (n = 5) informed the development of the tool, and usability testing was conducted with beta (adolescents n = 14, adults n = 8, older adults n = 1) and live (adolescents n = 70, adults n = 20, older adults n = 4) versions. Median system usability scale (SUS) scores (measured on a scale of 0-100) in adolescents and adults were marginal for the beta version (adolescents median SUS = 66, interquartile range (IQR) = 20; adults median SUS = 68, IQR = 40) and good for the live version (adolescents median SUS = 73, IQR = 22; adults median SUS = 80, IQR = 25). Myfood24 is the first online 24-h dietary recall tool for use with different age groups in the UK. Usability testing indicates that myfood24 is suitable for use in UK adolescents and adults.

Keywords: 24-h dietary recall; dietary assessment; nutrition assessment.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart illustrating the development process of myfood24. 1 AMPM = Automated Multiple-Pass Method; 2 “Clay model” = static clickable wire-frame without database functionality.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Key requirements to be considered in website design identified from the literature [21,22,23,24,25,26].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Typical myfood24 workflow for researcher and participant (shaded boxes represent participant actions; unshaded boxes represent researcher actions).
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) Screenshot to show searching and logging items consumed using myfood24. (b) Screenshot to show estimating portion sizes using myfood24.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) Screenshot to show searching and logging items consumed using myfood24. (b) Screenshot to show estimating portion sizes using myfood24.

References

    1. Schatzkin A., Subar A.F., Moore S., Park Y., Potischman N., Thompson F.E., Leitzmann M., Hollenbeck A., Morrissey K.G., Kipnis V. Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Nutrition and Cancer: The Next Generation (with Better Observation) Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2009;18:1026–1032. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-1129.
    1. Bingham S.A., Luben R., Welch A., Wareham N., Khaw K.T., Day N. Are imprecise methods obscuring a relation between fat and breast cancer? Lancet. 2003;362:212–214. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13913-X.
    1. Subar A.F., Kipnis V., Troiano R.P., Midthune D., Schoeller D.A., Bingham S., Sharbaugh C.O., Trabulsi J., Runswick S., Ballard-Barbash R., et al. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: The OPEN study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003;158:1–13. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg092.
    1. Arab L., Tseng C.H., Ang A., Jardack P. Validity of a multipass, web-based, 24-h self-administered recall for assessment of total energy intake in blacks and whites. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2011;174:1256–1265. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr224.
    1. Subar A.F., Kirkpatrick S.I., Mittl B., Zimmerman T.P., Thompson F.E., Bingley C., Willis G., Islam N.G., Baranowski T., McNutt S., et al. The Automated Self-Administered 24-h dietary recall (ASA24): A resource for researchers, clinicians, and educators from the National Cancer Institute. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2012;112:1134–1137. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.04.016.
    1. Touvier M., Kesse-Guyot E., Mejean C., Pollet C., Malon A., Castetbon K., Hercberg S. Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies. Br. J. Nutr. 2011;105:1055–1064. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510004617.
    1. Foster E., Hawkins A., Delve J., Adamson A.J. Reducing the cost of dietary assessment: Self-completed recall and analysis of nutrition for use with children (SCRAN24) J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2014;27(Suppl. 1):26–35. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12108.
    1. UK Biobank 24-hour Dietary Recall Questionnaire. [(accessed on 18 December 2014)]. Available online: .
    1. Liu B., Young H., Crowe F.L., Benson V.S., Spencer E.A., Key T.J., Appleby P.N., Beral V. Development and evaluation of the Oxford WebQ, a low-cost, web-based method for assessment of previous 24 h dietary intakes in large-scale prospective studies. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14:1998–2005. doi: 10.1017/S1368980011000942.
    1. Subar A.F., Crafts J., Zimmerman T.P., Wilson M., Mittl B., Islam N.G., McNutt S., Potischman N., Buday R., Hull S.G., et al. Assessment of the accuracy of portion size reports using computer-based food photographs aids in the development of an automated self-administered 24-h recall. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 2010;110:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.10.007.
    1. Conway J.M., Ingwersen L.A., Vinyard B.T., Moshfegh A.J. Effectiveness of the US Department of Agriculture 5-step multiple-pass method in assessing food intake in obese and nonobese women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003;77:1171–1178.
    1. Moshfegh A.J., Rhodes D.G., Baer D.J., Murayi T., Clemens J.C., Rumpler W.V., Paul D.R., Sebastian R.S., Kuczynski K.J., Ingwersen L.A., et al. The US Department of Agriculture Automated Multiple-Pass Method reduces bias in the collection of energy intakes. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008;88:324–332.
    1. Vereecken C.A., Covents M., Matthys C., Maes L. Young adolescents’ nutrition assessment on computer (YANA-C) Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2005;59:658–667. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602124.
    1. Moore H.J., Hillier F.C., Batterham A.M., Ells L.J., Summerbell C.D. Technology-based dietary assessment: Development of the Synchronised Nutrition and Activity Program (SNAP) J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2014;27(Suppl. 1):36–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2012.01295.x.
    1. Jackson D., Craig L., Creaton M. Evaluation and relative validation of a web based 24-h dietary recall in children aged 9–11 years; Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Diet and Activity Methods; Rome, Italy. 14–17 May 2012.
    1. Carter M.C., Burley V.J., Nykjaer C., Cade J.E. “My Meal Mate” (MMM): Validation of the diet measures captured on a smartphone application to facilitate weight loss. Br. J. Nutr. 2013;109:539–546. doi: 10.1017/S0007114512001353.
    1. McCance R.A., Widdowson E.M. McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods. 6th ed. Royal Society of Chemistry; Cambridge, UK: 2002.
    1. Foster E., Hawkins A., Adamson A. Young Person’s Food Altas-Secondary. Food Standards Agency Publications; London, UK: 2010.
    1. Gregory J., Lowe S., Bates C.J., Prentice A., Jackson L.V., Smithers G., Wenlock R., Farron M. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Young People Aged 4 to 18 Years. TSO; London, UK: 2000.
    1. Cade J., Hancock N., Carter M., McLoughlin C., Wark P., Hatherley A., Steen E., Ryecroft C., Alwan N., Morris M. PP38 Development of a new UK food composition database. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2014;68:A62–A63. doi: 10.1136/jech-2014-204726.134.
    1. Yan Z. What influences children’s and adolescents’ understanding of the complexity of the Internet? Dev. Psychol. 2006;42:418–428. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.418.
    1. Nielsen J. Usability of Websites for Teenagers. [(accessed on 18 December 2014)]. Available online:
    1. Nielsen J. Ten Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. [(accessed on 18 December 2014),]. Available online:
    1. Norman D. Emotion & design: Attractive things work better. Interactions. 2002;9:36–42. doi: 10.1145/543434.543435.
    1. Courage C., Baxter K. Understanding Your Users: A Practical Guide to User Requirements Methods, Tools, and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.; San Fransisco, CA, USA: 2005.
    1. Holzwarth M., Janiszewski C., Neumann M. The Influence of Avatars on Online Consumer Shopping Behavior. J. Mark. 2006;70:19–36. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.19.
    1. Virzi R.A. Streamlining the Design Process: Running Fewer Subjects. Proceed. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 1990;34:291–294. doi: 10.1177/154193129003400411.
    1. Nielsen J., Landauer T.K. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems; Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 24–29 April 1993; pp. 206–213.
    1. Brooke J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 1996;189:194.
    1. Bangor A., Kortum P.T., Miller J.T. An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2008;24:574–594. doi: 10.1080/10447310802205776.
    1. Krebs P., Burkhalter J.E., Snow B., Fiske J., Ostroff J.S. Development and Alpha Testing of QuitIT: An Interactive Video Game to Enhance Skills for Coping With Smoking Urges. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2013;2:e35. doi: 10.2196/resprot.2416.
    1. Bossen D., Veenhof C., Dekker J., de Bakker D. The usability and preliminary effectiveness of a web-based physical activity intervention in patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2013;13 doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-61.
    1. Lynch K.R., Schwerha D.J., Johanson G.A. Development of a Weighted Heuristic for Website Evaluation for Older Adults. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2012;29:404–418. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2012.715277.
    1. Bangor A., Kortum P., Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 2009;4:114–123.
    1. Buday R., Tapia R., Maze G.R. Technology-driven dietary assessment: A software developer’s perspective. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2014;27(Suppl. 1):10–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2012.01255.x.
    1. Cade J.E., Burley V.J., Greenwood D.C. The UK Women’s Cohort Study: Comparison of vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters. Public Health Nutr. 2004;7:871–878. doi: 10.1079/PHN2004620.
    1. Elliott P., Vergnaud A.C., Singh D., Neasham D., Spear J., Heard A. The Airwave Health Monitoring Study of police officers and staff in Great Britain: Rationale, design and methods. Environ. Res. 2014;134 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.07.025.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir