Validity and acceptability of image-based food record in assessing nutrient intake among selected Malaysian undergraduates
Introduction: Recognising the limitations of present dietary assessments method, recent attention had been drawn to image-based food record (IBFR) to assess dietary intake of the population. Thus, the present study aimed to compare nutrient intake assessed using IBFR with 24-hour diet recall (24DR)...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia
2020
|
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/90252/1/9upm.pdf http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/90252/ https://medic.upm.edu.my/upload/dokumen/2020081014244809_MJMHS_0064.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Introduction: Recognising the limitations of present dietary assessments method, recent attention had been drawn to image-based food record (IBFR) to assess dietary intake of the population. Thus, the present study aimed to compare nutrient intake assessed using IBFR with 24-hour diet recall (24DR) among nutrition and dietetics student. Method: There were 46 nutrition and dietetic undergraduates participated in the study, and information on the socio-demographic background and acceptability toward IBFR were obtained. Respondents were trained to complete one-day IBFR, and they were interviewed by researchers on the following day for their 24DR. Result: The mean age of respondents was 21.4±1.7 years old. The present study revealed that there were significantly higher protein and beta-carotene, but lower vitamin C reported by IBFR compared to 24DR. Medium to strong correlations were found between IBFR and 24DR for energy and nutrients intakes. The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a good level of agreement between IBFR and 24DR for energy and macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein and fat), respectively. The mean differences between IBFR and 24DR were -36 kcal for total daily energy intake, while mean differences of -12.24g, 0.79g, and 1.52g were reported for carbohydrates protein, and fat, respectively. Moderate level of agreement toward acceptability was demonstrated, and most of them (67.4%) preferred IBFR method. Conclusion: The present study revealed that IBFR showed a good level of agreement with 24DR in assessing nutrient intake. However, more extensive works should be considered to improve IBFR in assessing the energy and nutrients intake for the general population. |
|---|