Validation of a new hand-held electronic data capture method for continuous monitoring of subjective appetite sensations

Catherine Gibbons, Phillipa Caudwell, Graham Finlayson, Neil King, John Blundell, Catherine Gibbons, Phillipa Caudwell, Graham Finlayson, Neil King, John Blundell

Abstract

Background: When large scale trials are investigating the effects of interventions on appetite, it is paramount to efficiently monitor large amounts of human data. The original hand-held Electronic Appetite Ratings System (EARS) was designed to facilitate the administering and data management of visual analogue scales (VAS) of subjective appetite sensations. The purpose of this study was to validate a novel hand-held method (EARS II (HP® iPAQ)) against the standard Pen and Paper (P&P) method and the previously validated EARS.

Methods: Twelve participants (5 male, 7 female, aged 18-40) were involved in a fully repeated measures design. Participants were randomly assigned in a crossover design, to either high fat (>48% fat) or low fat (<28% fat) meal days, one week apart and completed ratings using the three data capture methods ordered according to Latin Square. The first set of appetite sensations was completed in a fasted state, immediately before a fixed breakfast. Thereafter, appetite sensations were completed every thirty minutes for 4h. An ad libitum lunch was provided immediately before completing a final set of appetite sensations.

Results: Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted for ratings of hunger, fullness and desire to eat. There were no significant differences between P&P compared with either EARS or EARS II (p > 0.05). Correlation coefficients between P&P and EARS II, controlling for age and gender, were performed on Area Under the Curve ratings. R2 for Hunger (0.89), Fullness (0.96) and Desire to Eat (0.95) were statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: EARS II was sensitive to the impact of a meal and recovery of appetite during the postprandial period and is therefore an effective device for monitoring appetite sensations. This study provides evidence and support for further validation of the novel EARS II method for monitoring appetite sensations during large scale studies. The added versatility means that future uses of the system provides the potential to monitor a range of other behavioural and physiological measures often important in clinical and free living trials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of subjective hunger and fullness ratings using P&P, EARS and EARS II on the High Fat and Low Fat meal days. Data shows mean (± SEM). Abbreviations on x-axis: Pre-B (Pre-Breakfast), Post-B (Post-Breakfast), plus 30 min (30 min after breakfast) continued until Pre-Lunch (4 hours post-breakfast) and Post-Lunch.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland Altman plot showing agreement between traditional P&P and EARS II for hunger ratings on the HF meal day (95% CI = -1.10 to 3.14).

References

    1. Stubbs R, Hughes D, Johnstone A, Rowley E, Reid C, Elia M, Stratton R, Delargy H, King N, Blundell J. The use of visual analogue scales to assess motivation to eat in human subjects: a review of their reliability and validity with an evaluation of new hand-held computerized systems for temporal tracking of appetite ratings. British Journal of Nutrition. 2000;84(04):405–415. doi: 10.1017/S0007114500001719.
    1. Gwaltney C, Shields A, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value in Health. 2008;11(2):322–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x.
    1. Hill A, Blundell J. Nutrients and behaviour: research strategies for the investigation of taste characteristics, food preferences, hunger sensations and eating patterns in man. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1982;17(2):203–212.
    1. Stone A, Shiffman S, Schwartz J, Broderick J, Hufford M. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. British Medical Journal. 2002;324(7347):1193. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1193.
    1. Stratton R, Stubbs R, Hughes D, King N, Blundell J, Elia M. Comparison of the traditional paper visual analogue scale questionnaire with an Apple Newton electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in free living subjects feeding ad libitum. European journal of clinical nutrition. 1998;52(10):737. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600636.
    1. Whybrow S, Stephen J, Stubbs R. The evaluation of an electronic visual analogue scale system for appetite and mood. European journal of clinical nutrition. 2006;60(4):558–560. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602342.
    1. Hufford M, Shields A. Electronic subject diaries: an examination of applications and what in the field. Applied Clinical Trials. 2002;11:46–56.
    1. Delargy H, Lawton C, Smith F, King N, Blundell J. Electronic appetite rating system (EARS): validation of continuous automated monitoring of motivation to eat. Int J Obes. 1996;20:104.
    1. Zabel R, Ash S, Bauer J, King N. Assessment of subjective appetite sensations in hemodialysis patients. Agreement and feasibility between traditional paper and pen and a novel electronic appetite rating system. Appetite. 2009;52(2):525–527. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.10.010.
    1. Stubbs J, Rowley E, Hughes D, Johnstone A, Reid C, King N, Blundell J, Elia M, Stratton R. Evaluating a new electronic appetite rating system (EARS) International Journal of Obesity. 1997;21(Supplement 2)
    1. Martin Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–310. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.
    1. Blundell JE. In: Nutrition and Lifestyles, ed. M. Turner, editor. Applied Science Publishers: London; 1979. Hunger, appetite and satiety - constructs in search of identities; pp. 21–42.
    1. Flint A, Raben A, Blundell J, Astrup A. Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. International Journal of Obesity. 2000;24(1):38–48. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801083.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever