ArticleJMIR human factors2025
User Preferences for an Image-Assisted Dietary Recall: Qualitative Study Comparing 3 Dietary Assessment Methods.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTechnology-assisted 24-hour dietary recall (24HR) methods offer the potential for scalable population dietary assessment, but current challenges include balancing accuracy and cost against participant burden and acceptability of these methods. Qualitative methods present a novel approach to understanding potential barriers and enablers to the acceptability of 24HR methods, but remain relatively unexplored.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore users' experience, acceptability, and preferences for 3 technology-assisted 24HR methods.
methodsParticipants in a crossover controlled feeding study were invited to undertake a poststudy interview. Initially, the feeding study participants were randomized into one of three separate feeding days where they consumed breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a single day. On the following day, they undertook a 24HR via the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24), Intake24, or an Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour dietary recall (IA-24HR). When assigned to IA-24HR, participants viewed the images they captured with a mobile food record (mFR) app on the feeding day during the interview. On completing all 3 methods, 26 participants (ages 21 to 56 years) undertook semistructured interviews. The interview audio recordings were transcribed, and inductive content analysis was undertaken.
resultsOverall, participants wanted the 24HR methods to be easy, with the technology features of all methods considered helpful. A total of 5 content categories described users' experiences of the three 24HR methods: (1) "Put my food in the list," (2) "It's really hard to know portions," (3) ASA24 "was a painful process," (4) access to "images helped jog my memory," (5) Intake24 is "fairly quick," and (6) IA-24HR method preference. Participants expressed a preference for taking images with the mFR app. IA-24HR helped participants recall food and beverages consumed and increased perceptions of recall accuracy.
conclusionsThis novel qualitative research found that 24HR methods need to be as easy as possible for users. The participant burden of food and beverage identification and portion size estimation was evident across methods. Findings highlight the importance of using qualitative methods to explore user preferences for dietary assessment methods and confirm the need to reduce the user burden associated with 24HR methods. People want embedded technologies to enhance digitized versions of the traditional 24HR methods. The use of their own food images within the mFR app is an example of digital advancements within scalable 24-hour dietary assessments.
trial registrationAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000209897; www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=381165. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/32891.
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.