Comparison of Visual Estimation Methods for Regular and Modified Textures: Real-time Vs Digital Imaging
Overview
Affiliations
A variety of methods are available for assessing diet; however, many are impractical for large research studies in an institutional environment. Technology, specifically digital imaging, can make diet estimations more feasible for research. Our goal was to compare a digital imaging method of estimating regular and modified-texture main plate food waste with traditional on-site visual estimations, in a continuing and long-term care setting using a meal-tray delivery service. Food waste was estimated for participants on regular (n=36) and modified-texture (n=42) diets. A tracking system to ensure collection and digital imaging of all main meal plates was developed. Four observers used a modified Comstock method to assess food waste for vegetables, starches, and main courses on 551 main meal plates. Intermodal, inter-rater, and intra-rater reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation for absolute agreement. Intermodal reliability was based on one rater's assessments. The digital imaging method results were in high agreement with the real-time visual method for both regular and modified-texture food (intraclass correlation=0.90 and 0.88, respectively). Agreements between observers for regular diets were higher than those for modified-texture food (range=0.91 to 0.94; 0.82 to 0.91, respectively). Intra-rater agreements were very high for both regular and modified-texture food (range=0.93 to 0.99; 0.91 to 0.98). The digital imaging method is a reliable alternative to estimating regular and modified-texture food waste for main meal plates when compared with real-time visual estimation. Color, shape, reheating, mixing, and use of sauces made modified-texture food waste slightly more difficult to estimate, regardless of estimation method.
Tagi M, Hamada Y, Shan X, Ozaki K, Kubota M, Amano S JMIR Form Res. 2024; 8:e55218.
PMID: 39500491 PMC: 11576600. DOI: 10.2196/55218.
Pfisterer K, Amelard R, Chung A, Syrnyk B, MacLean A, Keller H Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):83.
PMID: 34997022 PMC: 8742067. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-03972-8.
Pfisterer K, Boger J, Wong A JMIR Hum Factors. 2019; 6(2):e13017.
PMID: 31094336 PMC: 6532336. DOI: 10.2196/13017.
Jago E, Gauthier A, Pegoraro A, Dorman S J Nutr Metab. 2019; 2019:9839320.
PMID: 31032116 PMC: 6458870. DOI: 10.1155/2019/9839320.
Ofei K, Mikkelsen B, Scheller R Public Health Nutr. 2018; 22(7):1203-1208.
PMID: 29759093 PMC: 10260788. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980018001064.