↓ Skip to main content

Validation of a self-administered web-based 24-hour dietary recall among pregnant women

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of a self-administered web-based 24-hour dietary recall among pregnant women
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12884-018-1741-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Savard, Simone Lemieux, Jacynthe Lafrenière, Catherine Laramée, Julie Robitaille, Anne-Sophie Morisset

Abstract

The use of valid dietary assessment methods is crucial to analyse adherence to dietary recommendations among pregnant women. This study aims to assess the relative validity of a self-administered Web-based 24-h dietary recall, the R24W, against a pen-paper 3-day food record (FR) among pregnant women. Sixty (60) pregnant women recruited at 9.3 ± 0.7 weeks of pregnancy in Quebec City completed, at each trimester, 3 R24W and a 3-day FR. Mean energy and nutrient intakes reported by both tools were compared using paired Student T-Tests. Pearson correlations were used to analyze the association between both methods. Agreement between the two methods was evaluated using cross-classification analyses, weighted kappa coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses. Pearson correlation coefficients were all significant, except for vitamin B12 (r = 0.03; p = 0.83) and ranged from 0.27 to 0.76 (p < 0.05). Differences between mean intakes assessed by the R24W and the FR did not exceed 10% in 19 variables and were not significant for 16 out of 26 variables. In cross-classification analyses, the R24W ranked, on average, 79.1% of participants in the same or adjacent quartiles as the FR. Compared to a 3-day FR, the R24W is a valid method to assess intakes of energy and most nutrients but may be less accurate in the evaluation of intakes of fat (as a proportion of energy intake), vitamin D, zinc and folic acid. During pregnancy, the R24W was a more accurate tool at a group-level than at an individual-level and should, therefore, be used in an epidemiological rather than a clinical setting. The R24W may be particularly valuable as a tool used in cohort studies to provide valid information on pregnant women's dietary intakes and facilitate evaluation of associations between diet and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Master 12 12%
Researcher 9 9%
Lecturer 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 34 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 34 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,533,914
of 23,798,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#3,464
of 4,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,618
of 328,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#110
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,798,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.