Trial reportNutrients2022
Predicting Perceived Problems in Self-Administered 24-Hour Dietary Recalls: A Quantitative Think-Aloud Study Comparing Automated Self-Assisted 24-Hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24
Trial report in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation versus observed intake using 4 technology-assisted dietary assessment methods: a randomized crossover feeding study.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Trial
- User Preferences for an Image-Assisted Dietary Recall: Qualitative Study Comparing 3 Dietary Assessment Methods.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Nutritional imbalances among university students and the urgent need for educational and nutritional interventions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Evaluating User Experiences and Preferred Features of a Web-Based 24-Hour Dietary Assessment Tool: Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Assessment of Intuitive Eating and Mindful Eating among Higher Education Students: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Demographic and psychosocial factors concerning dietary assessment error have been explored, but few studies have investigated the perceived problems experienced when completing dietary recalls. The aim of this research was to (i) compare the perceived problems encountered in two commonly used self-administered 24-hour dietary recall (24HR) programs (INTAKE24© and ASA24®) and (ii) explore whether mindful and habitual eating are associated with perceived problems during dietary recall. A randomised quantitative crossover design and think-aloud methodology were employed. Undergraduate university students (N = 55, Mage = 25.5, SD = 8.2, 75% female) completed a food habits and mindfulness questions pre-program, one 24HR (whilst thinking aloud), and a systems usability scale post-program. A week later, they completed the other 24HR (whilst thinking aloud). During a pilot, a coding frame of perceived problems was devised to quantify participants’ perceived problems. INTAKE24© generated significantly fewer perceived problems across all categories compared to ASA24® (17.2 vs. 33.1, p < 0.001). Of the participants, 68% reported a preference for INTAKE24© over ASA24®. Hierarchical multiple regression showed that habits and systems usability were significant predictors of perceived problems for INTAKE24© only. No significant predictors were found for ASA24®. The results provide insight into perceived problems people may encounter when using 24HR tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.