Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T14:21:55.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development and evaluation of a concise food list for use in a web-based 24-h dietary recall tool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2017

Katie Evans
Affiliation:
School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Republic of Ireland
Áine Hennessy
Affiliation:
School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Republic of Ireland
Janette Walton*
Affiliation:
School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Republic of Ireland
Claire Timon
Affiliation:
UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Eileen Gibney
Affiliation:
UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Albert Flynn
Affiliation:
School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork, Cork, Republic of Ireland
*
* Corresponding author: J. Walton, email janette.walton@ucc.ie

Abstract

Foodbook24 is a self-administered web-based 24-h dietary recall tool developed to assess food and nutrient intakes of Irish adults. This paper describes the first step undertaken in developing Foodbook24 which was to limit participant burden by establishing a concise list of food items for inclusion in the tool. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether using a concise food list (as opposed to an extensive list) with generic composition data would influence the estimates of nutrient intakes in a nationally representative sample of Irish adults. A 2319-item food list generated from the Irish National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS) (2008–2010) (n 1500) was used as the basis for a shortened food list for integration into the tool. Foods similar in nutritional composition were recoded with a generic type food code to produce a concise list of 751 food codes. The concise food list was applied to the NANS food consumption dataset and intake estimates of thirty-five nutrients were compared with estimates derived using the original extensive list. Small differences in nutrient intakes (<6 %) with limited effect size (Cohen's d < 0·1) were observed between estimates from both food lists. The concise food list showed strong positive correlations (r s 0·9–1·0, n 1500, P < 0·001) and a high level of agreement with the extensive list (80–97 % of nutrient intakes classified into the same tertile; >90% of intakes similarly categorised according to dietary reference values). This indicates that a concise food list is suitable for use in a web-based 24-h dietary recall tool for Irish adults.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017
Figure 0

Table 1. List of all food codes included in the National Adult Nutrition Survey and shortened list of food codes developed for use in the Foodbook24 tool

Figure 1

Table 2. Differences in the mean daily intake of energy and nutrients from food sources only in Irish adults aged 18–90 years (n 1500) from the National Adult Nutrition Survey using both an extensive (n 2319) and a concise (n 751) food list (Mean values and standard deviations, and percentage differences)

Figure 2

Table 3. Association between estimates of nutrient intake from food sources only using the extensive (n 2319) and concise (n 751) food lists

Figure 3

Table 4. Percentage of participants meeting dietary reference values for macronutrients(2730) and dietary fibre(28) intake from all sources including nutritional supplements

Figure 4

Table 5. Classification of participants identified with intakes below the estimated average requirement (EAR)(30,33,34) (excluding under-reporters(40,41)) from all sources including nutritional supplements

Figure 5

Table 6. Classification of participants identified with intakes above the tolerable upper intake level (UL)(35-37) from all sources including nutritional supplements

Supplementary material: File

Evans et al supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Evans et al supplementary material(File)
File 76.8 KB