Your browser has javascript turned off or blocked. This will lead to some parts of our website to not work properly or at all. Turn on javascript for best performance.

The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Ulrika Ericson

Ulrika Ericson

Associate professor

Ulrika Ericson

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

Author

  • Sanna Nybacka
  • Heléne Bertéus Forslund
  • Elisabet Wirfält
  • Ingrid Larsson
  • Ulrika Ericson
  • Eva Warensjö Lemming
  • Göran Bergström
  • Bo Hedblad
  • Anna Winkvist
  • Anna Karin Lindroos

Summary, in English

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.

Department/s

  • Nutrition Epidemiology
  • Diabetes - Cardiovascular Disease
  • Cardiovascular Research - Epidemiology
  • EXODIAB: Excellence in Diabetes Research in Sweden
  • EpiHealth: Epidemiology for Health

Publishing year

2016-10-03

Language

English

Publication/Series

Journal of Nutritional Science

Volume

5

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Cambridge University Press

Topic

  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Keywords

  • Diet assessment
  • Doubly labelled water
  • FFQ
  • Food records
  • Nutrition epidemiology
  • Validation
  • Web-based methods

Status

Published

Research group

  • Nutrition Epidemiology
  • Diabetes - Cardiovascular Disease
  • Cardiovascular Research - Epidemiology

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 2048-6790