uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of a web-based food record tool and a food-frequency questionnaire and objective validation using the doubly labelled water technique in a Swedish middle-aged population
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Journal of Nutritional Science, ISSN 2048-6790, E-ISSN 2048-6790, Vol. 5, e39Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Two web-based dietary assessment tools have been developed for use in large-scale studies: the Riksmaten method (4-d food record) and MiniMeal-Q (food-frequency method). The aim of the present study was to examine the ability of these methods to capture energy intake against objectively measured total energy expenditure (TEE) with the doubly labelled water technique (TEEDLW), and to compare reported energy and macronutrient intake. This study was conducted within the pilot study of the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS), which included 1111 randomly selected men and women aged 50-64 years from the Gothenburg general population. Of these, 200 were enrolled in the SCAPIS diet substudy. TEEDLW was measured in a subsample (n 40). Compared with TEEDLW, both methods underestimated energy intake: -2·5 (sd  2·9) MJ with the Riksmaten method; -2·3 (sd 3·6) MJ with MiniMeal-Q. Mean reporting accuracy was 80 and 82 %, respectively. The correlation between reported energy intake and TEEDLW was r 0·4 for the Riksmaten method (P < 0·05) and r 0·28 (non-significant) for MiniMeal-Q. Women reported similar average intake of energy and macronutrients in both methods whereas men reported higher intakes with the Riksmaten method. Energy-adjusted correlations ranged from 0·14 (polyunsaturated fat) to 0·77 (alcohol). Bland-Altman plots showed acceptable agreement for energy and energy-adjusted protein and carbohydrate intake, whereas the agreement for fat intake was poorer. According to energy intake data, both methods displayed similar precision on energy intake reporting. However, MiniMeal-Q was less successful in ranking individuals than the Riksmaten method. The development of methods to achieve limited under-reporting is a major challenge for future research.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 5, e39
National Category
Nutrition and Dietetics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-307919DOI: 10.1017/jns.2016.29PubMedID: 27752306OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-307919DiVA: diva2:1048875
Available from: 2016-11-22 Created: 2016-11-22 Last updated: 2017-08-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Warensjö, Eva
In the same journal
Journal of Nutritional Science
Nutrition and Dietetics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 375 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf