Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Comparison of Paper- and Web-Based Dietary Records: A Pilot Study

Benedik E.a · Koroušić Seljak B.c · Simčič M.d · Rogelj I.e · Bratanič B.b · Ding E.L.f · Orel R.a · Fidler Mis N.a

Author affiliations

Departments of aGastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and bNeonatology, University Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Ljubljana, cComputer Systems Department, Jožef Stefan Institute, dDepartment of Food Science and Technology, and eDepartment of Animal Science, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; fDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., USA

Related Articles for ""

Ann Nutr Metab 2014;64:156-166

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: January 15, 2014
Accepted: April 30, 2014
Published online: August 09, 2014
Issue release date: August 2014

Number of Print Pages: 11
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0250-6807 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9697 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ANM

Abstract

Background/Aims: Paper-based dietary records (Paper-DR) can be replaced by web-based dietary records (Web-DR) in both epidemiological studies and clinical practice to reduce the time and logistic burden. We aimed to compare Paper-DR and Web-DR. Methods: We compared the matching of different food items (n = 1,103) from Paper-DR and Web-DR for energy and 48 nutrients among 16 pregnant volunteers, with DR for the same individuals matched for the same 4 days. Paper-DR were coded into the web-based version (referred to as Paper-Web-DR) independently by the same research dietitian. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing mean rank differences, Spearman's ρ to measure associations and Bland-Altman limits of agreement to evaluate the level of agreement between the two dietary methods across the range of parameters were used. Volunteers also completed an evaluation questionnaire regarding the user acceptability of Paper-DR and Web-DR. Results: A high correlation between Paper-DR and Web-DR was noted. There were statistically insignificant differences among 45 nutrients, except for free sugars (p < 0.001), α-linolenic acid (p = 0.041), folate (p = 0.036) and pantothenic acid (p = 0.023). Volunteers found the Paper-DR equally time-consuming as the Web-DR. The majority of the volunteers (75%) preferred the Web-DR. Conclusions: Paper-DR and Web-DR were comparable across a range of nutritional parameters, with a few exceptions. The Web-DR was more convenient for the majority and has substantial logistic and cost advantages.

© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Burke LE, Sereika S, Choo J, Warziski M, Music E, Styn M, et al: Ancillary study to the PREFER trial: a descriptive study of participants' patterns of self-monitoring - rationale, design and preliminary experiences. Contemp Clin Trials 2006;27:23-33.
  2. Jackson B, Dujovne CA, DeCoursey S, Beyer P, Brown EF, Hassanein K: Methods to assess relative reliability of diet records: minimum records for monitoring lipid and caloric intake. J Am Diet Assoc 1986;86:1531-1535.
    External Resources
  3. Gersovitz M, Madden JP, Smiciklas-Wright H: Validity of the 24-hr. dietary recall and seven-day record for group comparisons. J Am Diet Assoc 1978;73:48-55.
    External Resources
  4. Baranowski T, Islam N, Baranowski J, Cullen KW, Myres D, Marsh T, et al: The food intake recording software system is valid among fourth-grade children. J Am Diet Assoc 2002;102:380-385.
  5. Carine V A, Marc C, Denise H, Lea M: Feasibility of the Young Children's Nutrition Assessment on the Web. J Am Diet Assoc 2009;109:1896-1902.
  6. Thompson FE, Subar AMYF: Dietary assessment methodology; in Coulstone AM, Boushey CJ, Ferruzzi MG (eds): Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease, ed 3. Academic Press, USA, 2013, pp 5-46.
    External Resources
  7. European Food Safety Authority: General principles for the collection of national food consumption data in the view of a pan-European dietary survey. EFSA J 2009;7:1-51.
    External Resources
  8. Burke L, Warziski M, Starrett T, Choo J, Music E, Sereika S, et al: Self-monitoring dietary intake: current and future practices. J Ren Nutr 2005;15:281-290.
  9. Ming Yan Chung L, Wai Yee Chung J, Kwok Shing Wong T: Usability test of an interactive dietary recording. Int Electron J Heal Educ 2009;12:123-134.
  10. Lieffers JRL, Hanning RM: Dietary assessment and self-monitoring with nutrition applications for mobile devices. Can J Diet Pract Res 2012;73:e253-e260.
  11. Beasley JM, Riley WT, Davis A, Singh J: Evaluation of a PDA-based dietary assessment and intervention program: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Nutr 2008;27:280-286.
  12. Illner A-K, Freisling H, Boeing H, Huybrechts I, Crispim SP, Slimani N: Review and evaluation of innovative technologies for measuring diet in nutritional epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:1187-1203.
  13. Bratanič B, Fidler Mis N, Benedik E, Rogelj I: A short presentation of the research project ‘The role of human milk in development of breastfed child's intestinal microbiota'; in Rogelj I, Fidler Mis N, Bogovič Matijašić B (eds): Moje-mleko: Zbornik prispevkov / Mednarodni znanstveni simpozij Vloga humanega mleka v razvoju črevesne mikrobiote dojenčka. Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, 2011, pp 30-34.
  14. OPEN: The Open Platform for Clinical Nutrition 2013. http://www.opkp.si/en.
  15. Fidler Mis N, Kobe H, Štimec M: Dietary intake of macro- and micronutrients in Slovenian adolescents: comparison with reference values. Ann Nutr Metab 2012;61:305-313.
  16. Koroušić Seljak B: Computer-based dietary menu planning. J Food Comp Anal 2009;22:414-420.
    External Resources
  17. Golob T, Stibilj V, Žlender B, Kropf U, Korošec M, Polak T, et al: Slovenian Food Composition Tables. Meat and Meat Products (in Slovene). Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, 2006.
  18. Korošec M, Golob T, Bertoncelj J, Stibilj V, Seljak BK: The Slovenian food composition database. Food Chem 2013;140:495-499.
  19. Souci S, Fachmann W, Kraut H: Food Composition and Nutrition Tables. Stuttgart, Medpharm, 2008.
  20. USDA: National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, release 17. 2011.
  21. Greenfield H, Southgate DAT: Food Composition Data: Production, Management and Use, ed 2. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2003.
  22. Reinivuo H, Laitinen K: Proposal for the Harmonization of Recipe Calculation Procedures. WP2.2 Composite Foods. National Public Health Institute (KTL), Finland, 2007.
  23. Koroušić Seljak B, Stibilj V, Pograjc L, Fidler Mis N, Benedik E: Food composition databases for effective quality nutritional care. Food Chem 2013;140:553-561.
  24. Acharya SD, Elci OU, Sereika SM, Styn MA, Burke LE: Using a personal digital assistant for self-monitoring influences diet quality in comparison to a standard paper record among overweight/obese adults. J Am Diet Assoc 2011;111:583-588.
  25. Yon BA, Johnson RK, Harvey-Berino J, Gold BC, Howard AB: Personal digital assistants are comparable to traditional diaries for dietary self-monitoring during a weight loss program. J Behav Med 2007;30:165-175.
  26. Greenlaw C, Brown-Welty S: A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Eval Rev 2009;33:464-480.
  27. Touvier M, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, et al: Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:287-296.
  28. Vergnaud A-C, Touvier M, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Pollet C, Malon A, et al: Agreement between web-based and paper versions of a socio-demographic questionnaire in the NutriNet-Santé study. Int J Public Health 2011;56:407-417.
  29. García-Segovia P, González-Carrascosa R, Martínez-Monzó J, Ngo J, Serra-Majem L: New technologies applied to food frequency questionnaires: a current perspective. Nutr Hosp 2011;26:803-806.
    External Resources
  30. González Carrascosa R, García Segovia P, Martínez Monzó J: Paper and pencil vs online self-administered food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) applied to university population: a pilot study. Nutr Hosp 2011;26:1378-1384.
    External Resources
  31. Rosalind SG: Principles of Nutritional Assessment, ed 2. New York, Oxford University Press, 2005, Validity in dietary assessment methods, pp 149-158.
  32. Ambrosini GL, van Roosbroeck SAH, Mackerras D, Fritschi L, de Klerk NH, Musk AW: The reliability of ten-year dietary recall: implications for cancer research. J Nutr 2003;133:2663-2668.
    External Resources
  33. MacIntyre U, Venter C, Vorster H: A culture-sensitive quantitative food frequency questionnaire used in an African population. 1. Development and reproducibility. Public Health Nutr 2001;4:53-62.
  34. Jackson MD, Walker SP, Younger NM, Bennett FI: Use of a food frequency questionnaire to assess diets of Jamaican adults: validation and correlation with biomarkers. Nutr J 2011;10:1-11.
  35. Touvier M, Kesse-Guyot E, Méjean C, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, et al: Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies. Br J Nutr 2011;105:1055-1064.
  36. Probst Y, Tapsell LC: Overview of computerized dietary assessment programs for research and practice in nutrition education. J Nutr Educ Behav 2005;37:20-26.
  37. Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation: Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2003.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: January 15, 2014
Accepted: April 30, 2014
Published online: August 09, 2014
Issue release date: August 2014

Number of Print Pages: 11
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0250-6807 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9697 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ANM


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.