Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T02:03:40.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

APPetite: validation of a smartphone app-based tool for the remote measure of free-living subjective appetite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2021

Adrian Holliday ,
Kelsie Olivia Johnson ,
Mariana Kaiseler  and
Daniel R. Crabtree
Adrian Holliday*
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Centre, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
Kelsie Olivia Johnson
Affiliation:
Higher Education Sport, Hartpury University, Hartpury, UK
Mariana Kaiseler
Affiliation:
Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
Daniel R. Crabtree
Affiliation:
Division of Biomedical Sciences, University of the Highlands and Islands, Old Perth Road, Inverness IV2 3JH, Scotland, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Adrian Holliday, email adrian.holliday@newcastle.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study determined the validity, reproducibility and usability of a smartphone app – APPetite – for the measure of free-living, subjective appetite. Validity was assessed compared with the criterion tool of pen-and-paper visual analogue scale (VAS) (n 22). Appetite was recorded using APPetite and VAS, one immediately after the other, upon waking and every hour thereafter for 12 h. This was repeated the next day with the order of tool reversed. Agreement between tools was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis. Reproducibility and usability were assessed in a separate experiment (n 22) of two trials (APPetite v. VAS), separated by 7 d. Appetite was recorded in duplicate upon waking and every hour for 12 h using APPetite or VAS. Agreement between duplicate measures was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis and CV was compared between tools. Usability was assessed by comparing compliance and by qualitative evaluation. APPetite demonstrated good criterion validity with trivial bias of 1·65 units/mm·h–1 between APPetite- and VAS-derived AUC appetite scores. Limits of agreement were within a maximum allowed difference of 10 %. However, proportional bias was observed. APPetite demonstrated high reproducibility, with minimal bias (–0·578 units·h–1) and no difference in CV between APPetite and VAS (1·29 ± 1·42 % v. 1·54 ± 2·36 %, P = 0·64). Compliance was high with APPetite (92·7 ± 8·0 %) and VAS (91·6 ± 20·4 %, P = 0·81). Ninety percent of participants preferred APPetite, citing greater accessibility, simplified process and easier/quicker use. While proportional bias precludes using APPetite and VAS interchangeably, APPetite appears a valid, reproducible and highly usable tool for measuring free-living appetite in young-to-middle-aged adults.

Keywords

HungerEating behaviourMobile appEcological momentary assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 129 , Issue 9 , 14 May 2023 , pp. 1615 - 1625
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Flint, A, Raben, A, Blundell, J, etal. (2000) Reproducibility, power and validity of visual analogue scales in assessment of appetite sensations in single test meal studies. Int J Obes 24, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stubbs, R, Hughes, D, Johnstone, A, etal. (2000) The use of visual analogue scales to assess motivation to eat in human subjects: a review of their reliability and validity with an evaluation of new hand-held computerized systems for temporal tracking of appetite ratings. Br J Nutr 84, 405–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blundell, J, de Graaf, C, Hulshof, T, etal. (2010) Appetite control: methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods. Obes Rev 11, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, A, Shiffman, S, Schwartz, J, etal. (2002) Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. Br Med J 324, 1193–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stratton, R, Stubbs, R, Hughes, D, etal. (1998) Comparison of the traditional paper visual analogue scale questionnaire with an Apple Newton electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in free living subjects feeding ad libitum . Eur J Clin Nutr 52, 737–741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muehlhausen, W, Doll, H, Quadri, N, etal. (2015) Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. Health Qual Life Outcome 13, 167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hufford, M & Shields, A (2002) Electronic subject diaries: an examination of applications and what works in the field. Appl Clin Trials 11, 46–56.Google Scholar
Delargy, H, Lawton, C, Smith, F, etal. (1996) Electronic appetite rating system (EARS): validation of continuous automated monitoring of motivation to eat. Int J Obes 20, 104.Google Scholar
Gibbons, C, Caudwell, P, Finlayson, G, etal. (2011) Validation of a new hand-held electronic data capture method for continuous monitoring of subjective appetite sensations. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8, 57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whybrow, S, Stephen, J & Stubbs, R (2006) The evaluation of an electronic visual analogue scale system for appetite and mood. Eur J Clin Nutr 60, 558–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, D & Adipat, B (2005) Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. Int J Human-Computer Interact 18, 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumbold, PLS, Dodd-Reynolds, CJ & Stevenson, E (2013) Agreement between pen and paper visual analogue scales and a wristwatch-based electronic appetite rating system (PRO-Diary©), for continuous monitoring of free-living subjective appetite sensations in 7–10 year old children. Appetite 69, 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, A & Shiffman, S (1994) Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) on behavorial medicine. Ann Behav Med 16, 199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, N, Deighton, K, Dyson, J, etal. (2017) Snap-N-Send: a valid and reliable method for assessing the energy intake of elite adolescent athletes. Eur J Sports Sci 17, 1044–1055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martins, CK, Correa, JB, Han, H, etal. (2012) Validation of the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) for estimating energy and nutrient intake in near real-time. Obesity 20, 891–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollo, ME, Ash, S, Lyon-Wall, P, etal. (2015) Evaluation of a mobile phone image-based dietary assessment methods in adults with type 2 Diabetes. Nutrients 7, 4897–4910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeon, S-Y, O’Mahony, M & Kim, K-O (2002) A comparison of category and line scales under various experimental protocols. J Sens Stud 19, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, A & Blannin, AK (2017) Very low volume sprint interval exercise suppresses subjective appetite, lowers acylated ghrelin, and elevates GLP-1 in overweight individuals: a pilot study. Nutrients 9, 362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bland, JM & Altman, DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327, 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stöckl, D, Rodríguez, CD, Van Uytfanghe, K, etal. (2004) Interpreting method comparison studies by use of the Bland-Altman plot: reflecting the importance of sample size by incorporating confidence limits and predefined error limits in the graphic. Clin Chem 50, 2216–2218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
Nandy, BR & Sarvela, PD (1997) Content analysis reexamined: a relevant research method for health education. Am J Health Behavior 21, 222–234.Google Scholar
Lu, MJ, Zhong, WH, Liu, YX, etal. (2016) Sample size for assessing agreement between two methods of measurement by Bland-Altman method. Int J Biostat 12, 2015.Google ScholarPubMed
Holliday, A, Batey, C, Eves, FF, etal. (2014) A novel tool to predict food intake: the visual meal creator. Appetite 79, 68–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trull, TJ & Ebner-Priemer, U (2014) The role of ambulatory assessment in psychological science. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 23, 466–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choudrie, J, Pheeraphuttranghkoon, S & Davari, S (2020) The digital divide and older adult population adoption, use and diffusion of phone: a quantitative study. Inf Syst Front 22, 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morey, SA, Stuck, RE, Chong, AW, etal. (2019) Mobile health apps: improving usability for older adult users. Ergon 29, 4–13.Google Scholar
Fortney, JC, Burgess, JF, Bosworth, HB, etal. (2011) A re-conceptualization of access for 21st century healthcare. J General Internal Med 26, S639–S647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rangan, A, Tieleman, L, Louie, J, etal. (2016) Electronic Dietary Intake Assessment (e-DIA): relative validity of a mobile phone application to measure intake of food groups. Br J Nutr 115, 2219–2226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbons, C, Hopkins, M, Beaulieu, K, etal. (2019) Issues in measuring and interpreting human appetite (satiety/satiation) and its contribution to obesity. Curr Obes Rep 8, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadoul, B, Schuring, EAH, Mela, DJ, etal. (2014) The relationship between appetite scores and subsequent energy intake: an analysis based on 23 randomised controlled studies. Appetite 82, 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar