ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2026
Development and usability of a mobile ecological momentary assessment platform for dietary surveillance in the U.S.
Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDietary surveillance is critical for addressing diet-related chronic diseases, yet traditional methods like 24-hour dietary recalls and food frequency questionnaires suffer from recall bias, high respondent burden, and inaccurate portion size estimation. Mobile ecological momentary dietary assessment (mEMDA) enables real-time dietary capture, reducing memory load and minimizing reactivity. This study describes the user-centered development and iterative usability testing of Edna, a research-quality mEMDA platform for large-scale, low-burden dietary surveillance. Edna integrates real-time self-report with an image-supported, demographically inclusive food list derived from NHANES data and automated linkage to USDA nutrient databases. Here, we describe Edna’s development and usability in diverse U.S. adults.
methodsThree sequential rounds of iterative, user-centered development and usability testing were conducted between June 2024 and June 2025. Participants (N = 146 U.S. adults, ages 19–65 years) were recruited nationally through recruited nationally through an online research volunteer registry using stratified sampling by age, sex, BMI, and geographic region. Participants were randomly assigned to event-contingent or interval-contingent sampling conditions and asked to log all dietary intake for 14 consecutive days. Development refinements were guided by quantitative usability metrics and structured participant feedback through daily surveys and end-of-study questionnaires between rounds. Primary outcomes included System Usability Scale (SUS) scores, percentage of days with logged entries (engagement), and interval completion (interval-contingent only). The app was iteratively refined between rounds based on user feedback until SUS scores plateaued (change < 3 points). Statistical analyses included independent samples t-tests and ANOVA.
resultsSUS scores increased from 71.7 (SD = 23.0) in Round 1 to 78.8 (SD = 19.3) in Round 3, exceeding the digital health app benchmark of 68. Engagement ranged from 92.5 to 97.6% of study days, and interval completion among interval-contingent users ranged from 76 to 87%. Participants rated portion-size images as clear and culturally inclusive, with 94% reporting excellent overall experience.
conclusionsEdna achieved above-average usability and engagement, demonstrating that mEMDA is acceptable for population-level dietary surveillance. These findings support integration of EMA-based tools into routine public health nutrition monitoring to capture dietary behaviors more dynamically with reduced burden compared to traditional assessment methods.
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.