TY  - JOUR
AU  - Saha, Sanjoy
AU  - Lozano, Chloe Panizza
AU  - Broyles, Stephanie
AU  - Martin, Corby K
AU  - Apolzan, John W
PY  - 2022
DA  - 2022/6/15
TI  - Assessing the Initial Validity of the PortionSize App to Estimate Dietary Intake Among Adults: Pilot and Feasibility App Validation Study
JO  - JMIR Form Res
SP  - e38283
VL  - 6
IS  - 6
KW  - dietary assessment
KW  - eating
KW  - food intake
KW  - energy intake
KW  - portion size
KW  - mHealth
KW  - digital health
KW  - eHealth
KW  - nutrition
KW  - food groups
AB  - Background: Accurately assessing dietary intake can promote improved nutrition. The PortionSize app (Pennington Biomedical Research Center) was designed to quantify and provide real-time feedback on the intake of energy, food groups, saturated fat, and added sugar. Objective: This study aimed to assess the preliminary feasibility and validity of estimating food intake via the PortionSize app among adults. Methods: A total of 15 adults (aged 18-65 years) were recruited and trained to quantify the food intake from a simulated meal by using PortionSize. Trained personnel prepared 15 simulated meals and covertly weighed (weigh back) the amount of food provided to participants as well as food waste. Equivalence tests (±25% bounds) were performed to compare PortionSize to the weigh back method. Results: Participants were aged a mean of 28 (SD 12) years, and 11 were female. The mean energy intake estimated with PortionSize was 742.9 (SD 328.2) kcal, and that estimated via weigh back was 659.3 (SD 190.7) kcal (energy intake difference: mean 83.5, SD 287.5 kcal). The methods were not equivalent in estimating energy intake (P=.18), and PortionSize overestimated energy intake by 83.5 kcal (12.7%) at the meal level. Estimates of portion sizes (gram weight; P=.01), total sugar (P=.049), fruit servings (P=.01), and dairy servings (P=.047) from PortionSize were equivalent to those estimated via weigh back. PortionSize was not equivalent to weigh back with regard to estimates for carbohydrate (P=.10), fat (P=.32), vegetable (P=.37), grain (P=.31), and protein servings (P=.87). Conclusions: Due to power limitations, the equivalence tests had large equivalence bounds. Though preliminary, the results of this small pilot study warrant the further adaptation, development, and validation of PortionSize as a means to estimate energy intake and provide users with real-time and actionable dietary feedback. 
SN  - 2561-326X
UR  - https://formative.jmir.org/2022/6/e38283
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2196/38283
UR  - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35704355
DO  - 10.2196/38283
ID  - info:doi/10.2196/38283
ER  -