Suppr超能文献

对评估食物和酒精摄入量的数字和传统方法的偏好、预期负担和使用意愿。

Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake.

机构信息

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA.

Cofrin Logan Center for Addiction Research and Treatment, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.

出版信息

Nutrients. 2021 Sep 24;13(10):3340. doi: 10.3390/nu13103340.

Abstract

We conducted an online survey to examine the preference, expected burden, and willingness of people to use four different methods of assessing food and alcohol intake such as food/drink record, 24-h recall, Remote Food Photography Method© (RFPM, via SmartIntake app), and a novel app (PortionSize) that allows the in-app portion size estimation of foods/drinks by the user. For food (N = 1959) and alcohol (N = 466) intake assessment, 67.3% and 63.3%, respectively, preferred the RFPM/SmartIntake, 51.9% and 53.4% preferred PortionSize, 48.0% and 49.3% the food records, and 32.9% and 33.9% the 24-h recalls (difference in preference across all methods was < 0.001 for food and alcohol intake). Ratings of burden and preference of methods were virtually superimposable, and we found strong correlations between high preference and low expected burden for all methods (all ρ ≥ 0.82; all < 0.001). Willingness (mean (SD)) to use the RFPM/SmartIntake (food: 6.6 (2.0); alcohol: 6.4 (2.4)) was greater than PortionSize (food: 6.0 (2.2); alcohol: 6.0 (2.4); all < 0.001) and 24-h recalls (food: 6.1 (2.2); alcohol: 5.7 (2.7); < 0.001), but not different from food records (food: 6.6 (2.0); alcohol: 6.5 (2.3); all ≥ 0.33). Our results can be used in conjunction with existing data on the reliability and validity of these methods in order to inform the selection of methods for the assessment of food and alcohol intake.

摘要

我们进行了一项在线调查,以研究人们对四种不同的食物和酒精摄入量评估方法的偏好、预期负担和使用意愿,这些方法包括食物/饮料记录、24 小时回顾法、远程食物摄影法(Remote Food Photography Method©,通过 SmartIntake 应用程序)和一种新的应用程序(PortionSize,允许用户通过应用程序估算食物/饮料的份量)。对于食物(N=1959)和酒精(N=466)摄入评估,分别有 67.3%和 63.3%的人更喜欢使用 RFPM/SmartIntake,51.9%和 53.4%的人更喜欢使用 PortionSize,48.0%和 49.3%的人更喜欢使用食物记录,32.9%和 33.9%的人更喜欢使用 24 小时回顾法(所有方法之间的偏好差异均 < 0.001)。方法的负担和偏好评分几乎相同,我们发现所有方法的高偏好和低预期负担之间存在很强的相关性(所有 ρ≥0.82;所有 < 0.001)。使用 RFPM/SmartIntake 的意愿(平均值(标准差))(食物:6.6(2.0);酒精:6.4(2.4))大于 PortionSize(食物:6.0(2.2);酒精:6.0(2.4);所有 < 0.001)和 24 小时回顾法(食物:6.1(2.2);酒精:5.7(2.7); < 0.001),但与食物记录(食物:6.6(2.0);酒精:6.5(2.3);所有 ≥ 0.33)无差异。我们的结果可以与这些方法的可靠性和有效性的现有数据结合使用,以便为食物和酒精摄入量评估方法的选择提供信息。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f7d7/8539386/f04bd7ca2b1b/nutrients-13-03340-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验