ipl-logo

Dietary Assessment Methods Essay

1788 Words8 Pages

Introduction: New approaches of dietary assessment methods and instruments have been developed and applied to overcome some of the challenges and limitations in dietary assessment. Particularly the growing prominence of internet- and communication technologies has offered new possibilities to address bias and measurement errors inherent in all self-reported dietary intakes as well as organizational and financial issues in study planning and design. An evaluation of the potential of these innovative technologies to replace, improve or complement these commonly used dietary assessment methods may therefore help to better assess their usability and possible ‘added value’ in epidemiological studies. The objective of this article was inventory of …show more content…

PDA with specifically designed dietary software program can be used to register and self-monitor dietary intake. After having received some face-to-face training, The participant is asked to record dietary intake right after consumption, by selecting food items from menu of foods and beverages items. Amount consumed is estimated by portion size estimation aids (i.e. food photographs, picture books or food models and household measures). In others, subjects are instructed to quantify their amounts using traditional food models. Further variable assessment procedures include the assessment of qualitative information of dietary habits (e.g. meal start time and date), food labels with nutritional information of purchased foods and the provision of personalized feedback.[1] To assess a PDA-based food record accuracy, compared this method with a 24 h Recalls and an observed lunch in 39 adults of different ethnic backgrounds. No significant differences were found in measuring macronutrient intake & energy. When comparing the data, Pearson correlations for the 24 h Recalls ranged from 0•5 to 0•8 and those for the observed lunch from 0•4 to 0•8. Incorrect estimation of portion sizes (49 %), incorrect foods (25 %), omitting food (15 %), reporting similar but not identical food (9 %) and nutrient database differences (2

Open Document