Article

Evaluation of a PDA-based dietary assessment and intervention program: a randomized controlled trial.

Personal Improvement Computer Systems, Inc., Reston, Virginia, USA.
Journal of the American College of Nutrition (Impact Factor: 1.68). 05/2008; 27(2):280-6. DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2008.10719701
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the capability of DietMatePro, a PDA-based dietary assessment program, to monitor dietary intake and to improve adherence to a dietary regimen.
Randomized controlled trial.
Overweight and obese (Body Mass Index (BMI) 25-40) participants without dietary restrictions.
Participants (n = 174) were randomized to record usual dietary intake using either DietMatePro or a paper food diary for one week to compare concordance with 24-hr recall. At the week 1 visit, participants were individually counseled to follow the diet recommendations of the Ornish Prevention Diet for three weeks and continue monitoring food intake using the assigned method to estimate adherence to the intervention by monitoring condition.
Spearman correlations between week 1 24-hr recall and the assigned recording method were compared to assess validity. Mean pre-post changes in intake measured by 24-hr recall were compared according to monitoring condition to measure adherence to the Ornish diet.
Correlations of energy and nutrient values reported on the food label ranged from 0.41 to 0.71 for the DietMatePro condition versus 0.63 to 0.83 for the paper-based diary. Diet adherence was higher among DietMatePro (43%) compared to the paper diary (28%) group (p = 0.039).
DietMatePro does not appear to produce more valid data than paper-based approaches. DietMatePro may improve adherence to dietary regimens compared to paper-based methods.

2 Followers
 · 
141 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: To describe the acceptance of DietAdvice, an automated dietary assessment website, by its stakeholders.Methods: One‐month evaluation study using audio‐recorded telephone interviews with 10 patients who had used DietAdvice, 10 dietitians, 10 general practitioners who recruited many patients and 10 general practitioners who recruited few or no patients to the website to obtain their beliefs and opinions about DietAdvice, health, nutrition and technology. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed for categorical themes using NVivo software.Results: Patients were concerned about Internet difficulties and had a preference for face‐to‐face interviews and dietitians felt that DietAdvice could save time prior to dietary education and counselling. Recruiting general practitioners believed that patient computer literacy was a limitation, although increased availability of dietary services created by DietAdvice. Non‐recruiting general practitioners felt that they had a lack of time available to recruit patients, patient computer literacy was limited and there was a need for face‐to‐face contact.Conclusion: The perspectives of patients and health‐care providers show variation based on their experience with DietAdvice, their focus on nutrition and their role in the health‐care system. Automated technologies are likely to play a significant part in the future of dietetics.
    Nutrition &amp Dietetics 03/2012; 69(1). DOI:10.1111/j.1747-0080.2011.01573.x · 0.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Despite the hundreds of diet apps available for use on smartphones (mobile phones), no studies have examined their use as tools for dietary assessment and tracking in sports nutrition. Objective: The aim is to examine the prevalence and perceptions of using smartphone diet apps for dietary assessment and tracking among sports dietitians. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey to examine the use and perception of diet apps was developed and distributed to sports dietitians in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Results: The overall response rate from the 1709 sports dietitians invited to participate was 10.3% (n=180). diet apps were used by 32.4% (57/176) of sports dietitians to assess and track the dietary intake of athletes. Sports dietitians from the US were more likely to use smartphone diet apps than sports dietitians from other countries (OR=5.61, 95% CI 1.84-17.08, P=.002). Sports dietitians used 28 different diet apps, with 56% (32/57) choosing MyFitnessPal. Overall, sports dietitians held a positive perception of smartphone diet apps, with the majority of respondents viewing diet apps as “better” (25/53, 47%) or “equivalent” (22/53, 41%) when compared with traditional dietary assessment methods. Conclusions: Nearly one-third of sports dietitians used mobile phone diet apps in sports nutrition practice, and viewed them as useful in helping to assess and track the dietary intake of athletes.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 01/2015; mhealth and uhealth: 3(1). DOI:10.2196/mhealth.3345 · 4.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dietary intake assessment with diet records (DR) is a standard research and practice tool in nutrition. Manual entry and analysis of DR is time-consuming and expensive. New electronic tools for diet entry by clients and research participants may reduce the cost and effort of nutrient intake estimation. To determine the validity of electronic diet recording, we compared responses to 3-day DR kept by Tap & Track software for the Apple iPod Touch and records kept on the Nutrihand website to DR coded and analyzed by a research dietitian into a customized US Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient analysis program, entitled GRAND (Grand Forks Research Analysis of Nutrient Data). Adult participants (n=19) enrolled in a crossover-designed clinical trial. During each of two washout periods, participants kept a written 3-day DR. In addition, they were randomly assigned to enter their DR in a Web-based dietary analysis program (Nutrihand) or a handheld electronic device (Tap & Track). They completed an additional 3-day DR and the alternate electronic diet recording methods during the second washout. Entries resulted in 228 daily diet records or 12 for each of 19 participants. Means of nutrient intake were calculated for each method. Concordance of the intake estimates were determined by Bland-Altman plots. Coefficients of determination (R(2)) were calculated for each comparison to assess the strength of the linear relationship between methods. No significant differences were observed between the mean nutrient values for energy, carbohydrate, protein, fat, saturated fatty acids, total fiber, or sodium between the recorded DR analyzed in GRAND and either Nutrihand or Tap & Track, or for total sugars comparing GRAND and Tap & Track. Reported values for total sugars were significantly reduced (P<.05) comparing Nutrihand to GRAND. Coefficients of determination (R(2)) for Nutrihand and Tap & Track compared to DR entries into GRAND, respectively, were energy .56, .01; carbohydrate .58, .08; total fiber .65, .37; sugar .78, .41; protein .44, .03; fat .36, .03; saturated fatty acids .23, .03; sodium .20, .00; and for Nutrihand only for cholesterol .88; vitamin A .02; vitamin C .37; calcium .05; and iron .77. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrates high variability in individual responses for both electronic capture programs with higher 95% limits of agreement for dietary intake recorded on Tap & Track. In comparison to dietitian-entered 3-day DR, electronic methods resulted in no significant difference in mean nutrient estimates but exhibited larger variability, particularly the Tap & Track program. However, electronic DR provided mean estimates of energy, macronutrients, and some micronutrients, which approximated those of the dietitian-analyzed DR and may be appropriate for dietary monitoring of groups. Electronic diet assessment methods have the potential to reduce the cost and burden of DR analysis for nutrition research and clinical practice. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01183520; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01183520 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6VSdYznKX).
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 01/2015; 17(1):e21. DOI:10.2196/jmir.3744 · 4.67 Impact Factor