2017
DOI: 10.3390/nu9030218
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Potential Tool for Clinicians; Evaluating a Computer-Led Dietary Assessment Method in Overweight and Obese Women during Weight Loss

Abstract: Many Americans are attempting to lose weight with the help of healthcare professionals. Clinicians can improve weight loss results by using technology. Accurate dietary assessment is crucial to effective weight loss. The aim of this study was to validate a computer-led dietary assessment method in overweight/obese women. Known dietary intake was compared to Automated Self-Administered 24-h recall (ASA24) reported intake in women (n = 45), 19–50 years, with body mass index of 27–39.9 kg/m2. Participants receive… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By the end of the intervention, engaged users reported an average intake of 1470 (SD 535) calories per day , representing the recommended daily intake of 1200-1600 calories per day for achieving weight loss [30]. Although overweight and obese women often underreport their energy intake [31], the ASA24 can be a useful tool for determining the dietary intake of this population; Widamen and colleagues [32] found only a 5% difference between energy reported and actual energy consumed. Despite the associations between obesity and the issue of underestimating, this study considered the process of self-monitoring to be more important than the accuracy of reported dietary intake [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By the end of the intervention, engaged users reported an average intake of 1470 (SD 535) calories per day , representing the recommended daily intake of 1200-1600 calories per day for achieving weight loss [30]. Although overweight and obese women often underreport their energy intake [31], the ASA24 can be a useful tool for determining the dietary intake of this population; Widamen and colleagues [32] found only a 5% difference between energy reported and actual energy consumed. Despite the associations between obesity and the issue of underestimating, this study considered the process of self-monitoring to be more important than the accuracy of reported dietary intake [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After enrolment, women completed three 24 h dietary recalls (two on weekdays and one on a weekend day) for 1 week before the dietary intervention using the Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Dietary Recall (ASA24), which has been previously validated in pregnant women [18] and women of childbearing age [19] against measures of true intakes and interviewer-administered 24 h recall. Images assisted with portion size estimation, and food codes from the Australian Food Supplement and Nutrient Database (AUSNUT) 2011-2013 are automatically assigned.…”
Section: Dietary Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Kirkpatrick et al [33] found that more intrusions (items not consumed) were present with the use of a web-based self-administered 24HR method than in an interviewer-administered 24HR method. Widaman et al [35] found no statistically significant differences between estimated and observed intake of grain foods using web-based self-administered 24HR methods, although all other food groups were overestimated. These findings illustrate how controlled feeding studies can provide insights into the mechanisms of dietary intake measurement errors that would otherwise remain unknown.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Controlled feeding studies allow for the examination of measurement errors at the level of foods and beverages. Studies with measures of known food and beverage intake enable the understanding of factors contributing to misreporting, such as omission of particular types of foods, intrusions, inaccurate portion size estimation, and incorrect food descriptions [31][32][33][34][35].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%