No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The development and usability of a web-based mobile application as a dairy intake screener for South African adults
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2023
Abstract
Paper-based dietary assessment tools such as food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) and especially dietary screeners are making way for versions that use technology. Amidst low intakes of dairy and dairy-related nutrients in South Africa, and to increase public awareness thereof, we aimed to develop and evaluate the usability of an application (app) to screen for dairy intake in higher income South African adults. In a consultative process, a dairy intake screener (‘Dairy Diary’) was developed as an eight-item quantitative FFQ with four types of commonly consumed local dairy products: milk, maas (fermented milk), yoghurt, and cheese. For each dairy product, usual frequency of consumption and portion size per eating occasion were scored resulting in three risk classes: <1 serving daily; 1≤2 servings daily; ≥2 servings daily. Digitalisation included product- and portion-specific graphics with linkage to risk class-relevant preliminary dairy-related guidance as part of a web-based mobile app. For the evaluation of the usability, the 26-item end-user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) was used in an online cross-sectional survey (Qualtrics; April 2020). Items were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, resulting in three final app scores. From a conveniently recruited sample of 1102, 703 (64%; 81% female; mean age 29.8 ± 11.0 years) were retained for analysis. uMARS-informed descriptive statistics summarise the findings. The uMARS app mean objective quality score (3.9 ± 0.85), app subjective quality score (3.5 ± 0.77), app-specific score (3.6 ± 0.94), and additional question on e-portion (4.3 ± 0.78) met the minimum acceptability score of ≥3.0. For the subscales, the mean score for aesthetics was the highest (4.4 ± 0.82), followed by information (4.3 ± 0.90) and functionality (4.0 ± 1.33). Engagement scored lowest (3.0 ± 1.55). The ‘Dairy Diary’ is a user-friendly screener for dairy intake.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation
References
Aljuraiban, GS, Stamler, JM Chan, Q, van Horn, L, Daviglus, ML, Elliot, P and Oude Griep, LM and the INTERMAP Research Group (2019) Relations between dairy product intake and blood pressure: the international study on macro/micronutrient and blood pressure. Journal of Hypertension 36, 2049–2058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angbratt, M and Möller, M (1999) Questionnaire about calcium intake: can we trust the answers? Osteoporosis International 9, 220–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association for Dietetics in South Africa. [Internet]. ADSA Membership [cited 2022 Oct 18]. Available at http://www.adsa.org.za.Google Scholar
Bhupathi, V, Mazeriegos, M, Cruz Rodriguez, JB and Deoker, A (2020) Dairy intake and risk of cardiovascular disease. Current Cardiology Reports 22, 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braz, VN and Lopes, MHBM (2018) Evaluation of mobile applications related to nutrition. Public Health Journal 22, 1209–1214.Google ScholarPubMed
Burrows, RL and Rollow, ME (2019) Advancement in dietary assessment and self-monitoring using technology. Nutrients 11, 1648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byambasuren, O, Beller, E and Glasziou, P (2019) Current knowledge and adoption of mobile health apps among Australian general practitioners: a survey study. Jmir Mhealth and Uhealth 7(6), e13199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cade, J, Burley, V, Warm, D, Thompson, RL and Margetts, BM (2004) Food frequency questionnaires: a review of their design, validation and utilisation. Research Reviews 15, 5–12.Google Scholar
Chen, J, Gemming, L, Hanning, R and Allman-Farinelli, M (2018) Smartphone apps and the nutrition care process: current perspectives and future considerations. Patient Education and Counselling 101, 750–757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clerfeuille, E, Maillot, M, Verge, EO, Lluch, A, Darmon, N and Rolf-Pedersen, N (2013) Dairy products: how they fit in nutritionally adequate diets. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics 13, 950–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davalbhakta, S, Advani, S, Kumar, S, Agarwal, V, Bhovar, S, Fedirko, E, Misra, DP, Goel, A, Gupta, L and Agarwal, V (2020) A systematic review of smartphone applications available for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID19) and the assessment of their quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). Journal of Medical Systems 44, 164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eighty20. [Internet]. Eighty20 Calculator [cited 2022 Jun 20]. Available at http://www.eighty20.co.za/lsm-calculator/.Google Scholar
Elridge, AL, Piernas, C, Illner, AK, Gibney, MJ, Gurinov, MA, de Vries, JHM and Cade, JE (2019) Evaluation of new technology-based tools for dietary intake assessment. An ILSI Europe dietary intake and exposure task force evaluation. Nutrients 11, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, LB and Hand, RK (2015) Differentiating malnutrition screening and assessment: a nutrition care process perspective. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 115, 824–828.Google ScholarPubMed
Gans, KM, Risica, PM, Wylie-Rosett, J, Ross, EM, Strolla, LOMcMurray, J and Eaton, CB (2006) Development and evaluation of the nutrition component of the rapid eating and activity assessments for patients (REAP): a new tool for primary care providers. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviours 38, 286–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Global Mobile Consumer Survey (2017) The South African Cut. Deloitte. Global Mobile Consumer Survey 2017: The South African cut. [Cited 2021 September 20]. Available at https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/za/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/Deloitte%20South%20Africa%20Mobile%20Consumer%20Survey%202017%20-%20Mobile.pdf.Google Scholar
Goldbohm, RA, Cohrus, AMJ, Garre, FG, Schouten, LJ and van den Brandt, PA (2011) Dairy consumption and 10-y total and cardiovascular mortality: a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 93, 615–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GSMA (2019) The Mobile Economy: Sub-Saharan Africa [Cited 2021 September 28]. Available at https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=b9a6e6202ee1d5f787cfebb95d3639c5&download.Google Scholar
Guo, H, Givens, DI, Astrup, A, Bakker, SJL, Goossens, GH, Kratz, M, Marette, AN, Pijl, H and Soedamah-Muthu, S (2019) The impact of dairy products in the development of type 2 diabetes: where does the evidence stand in 2019? Advances in Nutrition 10, 1066–1075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gurinovic, M, Zekovic, M, Milesevic, J, Nikolic, M and Gilbetic, M (2017) Nutritional assessment. In Smithers, G (Ed), Reference Module in Food Sciences. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 1–14.Google Scholar
Hongu, N, Hingle, MD, Merchant, NC, Orr, BJ, Going, SB, Mosqueda, MI and Thomson, CA (2011) Dietary assessment tools using mobile technology. Clinical Nutrition 26, 300–311.Google Scholar
Hutchesson, MJ, Rollo, ME, Callister, R and Collins, CE (2015) Self-monitoring of dietary intake by young women: online food records completed on computer or smartphone are as accurate as paper-based food records but more acceptable. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 115, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Illner, AK, Freisling, H, Boeing, H, Huybrects, I, Crispim, SP and Slimani, N (2012) Review and evaluation of innovative technologies for measuring diet in nutritional epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology 41, 1187–1203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (2019) [Internet]. The state of the ICT sector report in South Africa [cited 2022 Oct 19]. Available at https://www.icasa.org.za/uploads/files/state-of-ict-sector-report-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
International Organisation of Standardisation (1998) ISO/IEC 9241-11. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Geneva, Switzerland. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/16883.html.Google Scholar
Jospe, MR, Fairbairn, KA, Green, P and Perry, TL (2015) Diet app use by sports dietitians: a survey in five countries 2015. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 3, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karduck, J and Chapman-Novakofski, K (2018) Results of the clinician apps survey. How clinicians working with patients with diabetes and obesity use mobile health apps. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour 50, 62–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labadarios, D, Steyn, NP, Maunder, E, Macintyre, U, Gericke, G, Swart, R et al. (1999) The national food consumption survey (NFCS): south Africa, 1999. Public Health Nutrition 8, 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBeau, K, Huey, LG and Hart, M (2019) Assessing the quality of mobile apps used by occupational therapists: evaluated using the user version of the mobile application rating scale. Jmir Mhealth and Uhealth 7(5), e13019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieffers, JRL, Vance, V and Hanning, R (2014) Use of mobile device applications in Canadian dietetic practice. Canadian Journal of Dietetics Practice and Research 75, 41–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Magarey, A, Baulderstone, L, Yaxley, A, Markow, K and Miller, M (2014) Evaluation of tools used to measure calcium and/ or dairy consumption in adults. Public Health Nutrition 18, 1225–1236.Google ScholarPubMed
Mani, M, Kavanagh, DJ, Hides, L and Stoyanov, R (2015) Review and evaluation of mindfulness-based iPhone apps. Jmir Mhealth and Uhealth 3(3), e82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mchiza, ZJ, Steyn, NP, Hill, J, Kruger, A, Schönfeldt, H, Nel, J and Wentzel-Viljoen, E (2015) A review of dietary surveys in the adult South African population from 2000 to 2015. Nutrients 7, 8227–8250.Google ScholarPubMed
Moyo, D and Munoriyarwa, A (2021) ‘Data must fall’: mobile data pricing, regulatory paralysis and citizen action in South Africa. Information, Communication & Society 24, 365–380.Google Scholar
Rice, BH, Quann, EE and Miller, GD (2013) Meeting and exceeding dairy recommendations: effects of dairy consumption on nutrient intakes and risk of chronic. Nutrition Reviews 71, 209–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Rodrigo, CP, Aranceta, J, Salvador, G and Varela-Moreiras, G (2015) Food frequency questionnaires xxx. Nutricion Hospitalaria 31(s3), 49–56.Google Scholar
Sauceda, A, Frederico, C, Pellechia, K and Starin, D (2016) Results of the academy of nutrition and dietetics’ consumer health informatics workgroup's 2015 member app technology survey. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 116, 1336–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharman, J and Ashbury, S (2015) Perspectives on app use among nutrition and dietetics professionals. The Open Nutrition Journal 9, 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, DB and Allman-Farinelli, M (2014) Feasibility and validity of mobile phones to assess dietary intake. Nutrition 30, 1257–1266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shim, JS, Oh, K and Kim, HC (2014) Dietary assessment methods in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology & Health 36, e2014009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoyanov, SR, Hides, L, Kavanagh, DJ, Zelenko, O, Tjondronegoro, D and Mani, M (2015) Mobile app rating scale: a tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. Jmir Mhealth and Uhealth 3(1), e27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoyanov, SR, Hides, L, Kavanagh, DJ and Wilson, H (2016) Development of the user version of the mobile application rating scale (uMARS). Jmir Mhealth and Uhealth 4(2), e72.Google ScholarPubMed
Thorning, TK, Bertram, HC, Bonjour, J, de Groot, L, DuPont, D, Feeney, E et al. (2017) Whole dairy matrix of single nutrients in assessment of health effects: current evidence and knowledge gaps. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 105, 1033–1045.Google ScholarPubMed
Timon, CM (2018) The practices and attitudes relating to digital health technology use among dietitians in Ireland. Applied Research for Connected Health an Enterprise Ireland and IDA.Google Scholar
Timon, CM, Blain, RJ, McNulty, B, Kehoe, L, Evans, K, Walton, J et al. (2017) The development, validation, and user evaluation of Foodbook24: a web-based dietary assessment tool developed for the Irish adult population. Journal of Medical Internet Research 19(5) e158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torre, SBD, Carrard, I, Farina, E, Danuser, B and Kruseman, M (2017) Development and evaluation of e-CA, an electronic mobile-based food record. Nutrients 9, 76.Google Scholar
Touvier, M, Kesse-Guyot, E, Méjean, C, Pollet, C, Malon, A, Castetbon, K et al. (2011) Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies British Journal of Nutrition 105, 1055–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Centre for Devices and Radiological Health Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research (2015) Medical mobile applications: Guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM263366.pdf/.Google Scholar
Vasiloglou, MF, Christodoulidis, S, Reber, E, Sathopoulou, T, Lu, Y, Stanga, Z et al. (2020) What healthcare professionals think of “nutrition and diet” apps: an international survey. Nutrients 12, 2214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vorster, HH, Wenhold, FAM, Wright, HH, Wentzel-Viljoen, E, Venter, CS and Vermaak, M (2013) “Have milk, maas or yoghurt every day”: a food-based dietary guideline for South Africa. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition 26, S57–S65.Google Scholar
Weaver, CM (2014) How sound is the science behind the dietary recommendations for dairy? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 99(suppl), 1217S–1222S.Google ScholarPubMed
Welten, DC, Kemper, HCG, Post, GB and van Staveren, WA (1995) Comparison of a quantitative dairy questionnaire with a dietary history in young adults. International Journal of Epidemiology 24, 763–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2004) Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Available at https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241592222.Google Scholar
Piderit et al. supplementary material
Figures S1-S2
PDF
90.6 KB