A comparison of the remote food photography method and the automated self-administered 24-h dietary assessment tool for measuring full-day dietary intake among school-age children

Br J Nutr. 2021 Jun 4;1-10. doi: 10.1017/S0007114521001951. Online ahead of print.


The limitations of self-report measures of dietary intake are well-known. Novel, technology-based measures of dietary intake may provide a more accurate, less burdensome alternative to existing tools. The first objective of this study was to compare participant burden for two technology-based measures of dietary intake among school-age children: the Automated-Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool-2018 (ASA24-2018) and the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM). The second objective was to compare reported energy intake for each method to the Estimated Energy Requirement for each child, as a benchmark for actual intake. Forty parent-child dyads participated in two, 3-d dietary assessments: a parent proxy-reported version of the ASA24 and the RFPM. A parent survey was subsequently administered to compare satisfaction, ease of use and burden with each method. A linear mixed model examined differences in total daily energy intake between assessments, and between each assessment method and the Estimated Energy Requirement (EER). Reported energy intake was 379 kcal higher with the ASA24 than the RFPM (P = 0·0002). Reported energy intake with the ASA24 was 231 kcal higher than the EER (P = 0·008). Reported energy intake with the RFPM did not differ significantly from the EER (difference in predicted means = -148 kcal, P = 0·09). Median satisfaction and ease of use scores were five out of six for both methods. A higher proportion of parents reported that the ASA24 was more time-consuming than the RFPM (74·4 % v. 25·6 %, P = 0·002). Utilisation of both methods is warranted given their high satisfaction among parents.

Keywords: Dietary assessment; Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes; Misreporting; Participant burden; Unobserved intake.