Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JMIR mHealth and uHealth logoLink to JMIR mHealth and uHealth
. 2015 Apr 24;3(2):e38. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3670

A New Mobile Phone-Based Tool for Assessing Energy and Certain Food Intakes in Young Children: A Validation Study

Hanna Henriksson 1,2, Stephanie E Bonn 3, Anna Bergström 4, Katarina Bälter 3, Olle Bälter 5, Christine Delisle 2, Elisabet Forsum 1, Marie Löf 1,2,✉
Editor: Gunther Eysenbach
Reviewed by: Klaas Westerterp, Lydia Zepeda
PMCID: PMC4425820  PMID: 25910494

Abstract

Background

Childhood obesity is an increasing health problem globally. Obesity may be established already at pre-school age. Further research in this area requires accurate and easy-to-use methods for assessing the intake of energy and foods. Traditional methods have limited accuracy, and place large demands on the study participants and researchers. Mobile phones offer possibilities for methodological advancements in this area since they are readily available, enable instant digitalization of collected data, and also contain a camera to photograph pre- and post-meal food items. We have recently developed a new tool for assessing energy and food intake in children using mobile phones called the Tool for Energy Balance in Children (TECH).

Objective

The main aims of our study are to (1) compare energy intake by means of TECH with total energy expenditure (TEE) measured using a criterion method, the doubly labeled water (DLW) method, and (2) to compare intakes of fruits and berries, vegetables, juice, and sweetened beverages assessed by means of TECH with intakes obtained using a Web-based food frequency questionnaire (KidMeal-Q) in 3 year olds.

Methods

In this study, 30 Swedish 3 year olds were included. Energy intake using TECH was compared to TEE measured using the DLW method. Intakes of vegetables, fruits and berries, juice, as well as sweetened beverages were assessed using TECH and compared to the corresponding intakes assessed using KidMeal-Q. Wilcoxon matched pairs test, Spearman rank order correlations, and the Bland-Altman procedure were applied.

Results

The mean energy intake, assessed by TECH, was 5400 kJ/24h (SD 1500). This value was not significantly different (P=.23) from TEE (5070 kJ/24h, SD 600). However, the limits of agreement (2 standard deviations) in the Bland-Altman plot for energy intake estimated using TECH compared to TEE were wide (2990 kJ/24h), and TECH overestimated high and underestimated low energy intakes. The Bland-Altman plots for foods showed similar patterns. The mean intakes of vegetables, fruits and berries, juice, and sweetened beverages estimated using TECH were not significantly different from the corresponding intakes estimated using KidMeal-Q. Moderate but statistically significant correlations (ρ=.42-.46, P=.01-.02) between TECH and KidMeal-Q were observed for intakes of vegetables, fruits and berries, and juice, but not for sweetened beverages.

Conclusion

We found that one day of recordings using TECH was not able to accurately estimate intakes of energy or certain foods in 3 year old children.

Keywords: cell phone, digital camera, food intake, energy intake, child, DLW, FFQ

Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), childhood obesity is one of the most serious public health challenges of the 21st century [1]. Therefore, there is growing interest for interventional and observational studies already in pre-school children (2-6 years) [2]. However, such studies are difficult to conduct since traditional dietary assessment methods have limited accuracy, and involve excessive effort for caretakers and researchers [3]. Mobile phones open new possibilities since they are readily available, enable instant data digitalization, and contain a camera for photographing pre- and post-meal food items. Photos using digital cameras have shown potential for assessing dietary intake in both adults [4-6] and children [7-9]. We have developed a new tool for assessing energy and food intake using mobile phones, the Tool for Energy Balance in Children (TECH). The aims of this pilot study in healthy 3 year olds were (1) to compare energy intake by means of TECH with total energy expenditure (TEE) measured using the doubly labeled water (DLW) method, and (2) to compare intakes of fruits and berries, vegetables, juice, and sweetened beverages assessed by means of TECH with corresponding intakes obtained using the Web-based KidMeal questionnaire (KidMeal-Q), previously validated against a 7-day food record. The selected foods were considered as relevant markers for good (fruits and berries, vegetables, and juice) and bad dietary habits (sweetened beverages).

Methods

Recruitment and Protocol

Healthy, 3 year old Swedish children (N=30) were recruited in 2010-2011 [10-12]. Their mean TEE was measured for 14 days using the DLW method [11,12]. During this period, the children’s intakes of foods and drinks were assessed using TECH, and parents completed the KidMeal-Q. A complete data collection was obtained from 30 children. The mean change in body weight between day 1 and 14 was -0.008 kg (SD 0.317). All children originated from a well-educated, middle-income population. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee, Linköping, Sweden. Written informed consent was obtained from all parents.

Tool for Energy Balance in Children (TECH)

Parents and other caretakers were instructed to take pre- and post-meal photographs of all the food items and beverages consumed by their child during one 24-hour period using a mobile phone provided for the study. At each meal, they also answered 6-7 questions regarding the type of milk, butter/margarine/oil, meat, bread, cereal, and sauce using a JAVA-based questionnaire installed on the mobile phone (see Figure 1). The parents were instructed to photograph the meals from three angles, to use tableware provided specifically for the study, and to place a matchbox in each image. Volumes of foods were assessed from images using known sizes of the tableware and matchbox identifications by means of the software Paint (Microsoft, version 6.1), and converted into weight by being multiplied by the appropriate weight per volume [13]. The energy intake was calculated from intakes of foods and drinks through linkage to the Swedish Food Database [14].

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Screenshot of a TECH question and picture.

KidMeal-Q

KidMeal-Q was developed in 2008 for the LifeGene study [15]. It is an online, meal-based food frequency questionnaire designed for children aged 3-5 years for assessing dietary intake during previous months, and covers 42-86 food items, drinks, and dishes, depending on the number of follow-up questions (see Figure 2). For each child, we converted the reported frequency for vegetables into daily intakes by multiplying them by the reported portion sizes (using six pictures). KidMeal-Q does not provide any portion sizes for juice, fruits, berries, or sweetened beverages, and thus standard portion sizes [14] were used to convert reported frequencies into daily intakes.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Screenshot of a sample KidMeal-Q question.

KidMeal-Q was validated against a 7-day weighed food record in 23 healthy Swedish children with a mean age of 4.6 years (SD 1.5), weight of 18.4 kg (SD 3.7), and height of 1.09 m (SD 0.11) (data to be published). In that study, correlation coefficients between intakes of vegetables, fruits, and juice to sweetened beverages assessed using KidMeal-Q and food record estimates were .45 (P=.03), .59 (P=.003), and .53 (P<.001), respectively. These correlation coefficients are similar to those reported for adults when comparing food-frequency questionnaires with food records [16,17]. Therefore, although not an established reference method, we consider KidMeal-Q to be an appropriate reference in this first evaluation of TECH.

Statistical Analyses

Values are given as means (SD). Significant differences between mean values were identified using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. Correlation analyses were performed using Pearson or Spearman rank order correlations. The Bland-Altman procedure [18] was used to assess the agreement between methods. Analyses were performed using Statistica Software, version 10 (STAT SOFT, Scandinavia AB, Uppsala, Sweden).

Results

The mean age of the children in the study was 3.00 years (SD 0.04), with a mean weight of 15.4 kg (SD 1.6), height of 0.96 m (SD 0.03), and body mass index (BMI) of 16.6 kg/m2(SD 1.2). Five children were classified as overweight, and none as obese [19].

The mean energy intake, assessed using TECH (5400 kJ/24h, SD 1500) was not significantly different (P=.23) from TEE (5070 kJ/24h, SD 600). Figure 3 shows the Bland-Altman plot for energy intake compared to TEE. The limits of agreement were wide, and TECH overestimated high energy intakes and underestimated low energy intakes.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

A Bland-Altman plot comparing energy intake estimated using TECH and total energy expenditure measured using the doubly labeled water method in 30 healthy 3 year old children. The mean difference between the methods was 330 kJ/24h with limits of agreement (2SD) of 2990 kJ/24h [16]. The regression equation was y=1.27(x−6312.67) (r=.73, P<.001).

The mean daily intakes of fruits and berries, vegetables, juice, and sweetened beverages using TECH and KidMeal-Q are shown in Table 1. No significant differences between the two methods were observed. When comparing intakes of fruits and berries, vegetables, juice, and sweetened beverages using TECH with the corresponding KidMeal-Q estimates, the Bland-Altman plots were similar to the corresponding plot for energy intake (ie, they showed large limits of agreement and trends toward an overestimation of high intakes and an underestimation of low intakes, figures not shown). Furthermore, significant correlations between the two methods were observed for intakes of fruits and berries, vegetables, and juice (Table 2).

Table 1.

Mean daily food intake estimated by means of TECH andKidMeal-Q (N=30).

Food group

 TECHa KidMeal-Qb P d
Intake (g/dayc), mean (SD) Range (g/day),
min-max		 Intake (g/day), mean (SD) Range (g/day),
min-max
Fruits and berries 89 (110) 0-309 88 (31) 37-125 .636
Vegetables 40 (52) 0-255 40 (36) 0-120 .568
Juice 50 (79) 0-240 59 (64) 0-300 .243
Sweetened beverages 95 (120) 0-320 36 (30) 0-96 .061
Open in a new tab

aTool for Energy Balance in Children

bKidMeal Questionnaire

cgrams/day

d P value for difference between daily intake estimated by means of TECH and KidMeal-Q using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test

Table 2.

Correlation coefficients between food intakes (grams/day) estimated using TECH and KidMeal-Q (N=30).

Food group ρ a P
Fruits and berries .46 .010
Vegetables .43 .020
Juice .42 .020
Sweetened beverages .15 .424
Open in a new tab

aSpearman rank order correlation

Discussion

Principal Findings

This is the first study that has evaluated energy intake assessed using mobile phones versus the DLW method in preschoolers. The average energy intake estimated using TECH was not significantly different from the average TEE (mean difference +7%). However, the limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman plot were wide, indicating low accuracy for TECH in estimating energy intake for individuals. Furthermore, we observed a bias where high energy intakes were overestimated while low energy intakes were underestimated. Although we only used TECH for one day, the mean difference and our limits of agreement for energy are comparable to previous validation studies for established dietary methods in children aged 3-6 years [20-25]. In our study, part of the inaccuracy for individuals may be the result of TECH being applied for only one day.

There is no reference method for intakes of foods and drinks. Hence, as commonly applied, we compared TECH with another dietary method to evaluate its relative accuracy for foods. Despite that TECH was only applied for one day, which may not represent habitual intakes, we obtained correlations for fruits and berries, vegetables, and juice with KidMeal-Q (which assesses habitual intakes in past months) that were of similar magnitude as those commonly reported when comparing two dietary methods [16,17]. Although the accuracy in individual children was low, the average intakes of fruits and berries, vegetables, and juice assessed using TECH were comparable to corresponding figures with KidMeal-Q. However, our results for foods need confirmation due to the different assessment periods.

Study Strengths and Limitations

The major strength of our study is that we compared energy intake to TEE using the DLW method, which is the gold standard when validating reports of energy intake [3,26]. This is superior to using another dietary method as a reference since all such methods are well known to be associated with systematic errors [3,27]. The DLW method can be used as a reference since energy intake and TEE should be equal for subjects in energy balance during the measurement period. This criteria is valid both in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and was fulfilled since our children were weight stable through the 14-day-period, and since the energy content of retained tissue corresponds to only approximately 1% of energy intake at this age [28,29]. A limitation is that we compared one-day TECH data with mean TEE data from 14 days. However, this has unlikely influenced our results since the day-to-day variation in TEE is small [30,31].

The major limitation of this pilot study is that we applied TECH during only one day. The reason for this is that this first evaluation of TECH was conducted within an on-going study and we did not want to affect the parents’ participation in the original study by adding more assessment days. Furthermore, our sample size was small and participating families represented a selected group, which may limit generalizability. However, since the accuracy of using TECH for one day was comparable to established dietary methods, future research should evaluate if the accuracy for TECH can be improved with more days. In addition, identification of the underlying reasons for the observed bias in TECH could be the topic for future studies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, one day of recordings using TECH is not able to accurately estimate intakes of energy or certain foods in 3 year old children.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all parents and children who participated in the study, Katrin Bergström (nutritionist) for analyzing the food images, as well as Johan Cederlund and Jan Fjellström for help with the mobile phone questionnaire. This work was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (15402, 2008-4322), AFA Insurance, the Medical Faculty at Linköping University, the County Council of Östergötland, the Crown Princess Lovisa Foundation, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Nutrition Foundation. The funders had no role in the design, analysis, or writing of this article.

Abbreviations

TECH

Tool for Energy Balance in Children

DLW

Doubly labeled water

TEE

Total energy expenditure

KidMeal-Q

KidMeal questionnaire

Footnotes

Authors' Contributions: ML, HH, EF, AB, SB, and KB designed the study. KB, AB, and SB designed KidMeal-Q. HH was responsible for the recruitment of children, data collection, and statistical analyses. SB performed data collection and analyses of KidMeal-Q. OB analyzed KidMeal-Q. CD contributed to the analysis of the food images. HH drafted the manuscript. ML, EF, KB, OB, CD, and AB and SB reviewed the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization (2014) [2014-11-28]. World Health Organization website http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/childhood/en/
  • 2.Hesketh Kylie D, Campbell Karen J. Interventions to prevent obesity in 0-5 year olds: an updated systematic review of the literature. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2010 Feb;18 Suppl 1:S27–35. doi: 10.1038/oby.2009.429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Burrows Tracy L, Martin Rebecca J, Collins Clare E. A systematic review of the validity of dietary assessment methods in children when compared with the method of doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Oct;110(10):1501–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2010.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhu Fengqing, Bosch Marc, Woo Insoo, Kim Sungye, Boushey Carol J, Ebert David S, Delp Edward J. The Use of Mobile Devices in Aiding Dietary Assessment and Evaluation. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process. 2010 Aug;4(4):756–766. doi: 10.1109/JSTSP.2010.2051471. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20862266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Martin CK, Nicklas T, Gunturk B, Correa JB, Allen HR, Champagne C. Measuring food intake with digital photography. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2014 Jan;27 Suppl 1:72–81. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12014. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23848588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wang Da-Hong, Kogashiwa Michiko, Kira Shohei. Development of a new instrument for evaluating individuals' dietary intakes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006 Oct;106(10):1588–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2006.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nicklas Theresa A, O'Neil Carol E, Stuff Janice, Goodell Lora Suzanne, Liu Yan, Martin Corby K. Validity and feasibility of a digital diet estimation method for use with preschool children: a pilot study. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2012;44(6):618–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2011.12.001. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22727939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Small L, Sidora-Arcoleo K, Vaughan L, Creed-Capsel J, Chung K, Stevens C. Validity and Reliability of Photographic Diet Diaries for Assessing Dietary Intake Among Young Children. ICAN: Infant, Child, & Adolescent Nutrition. 2009 Feb 01;1(1):27–36. doi: 10.1177/1941406408330360. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mitchell SA, Miles CL, Brennan L, Matthews J. Reliability of the School Food Checklist for in-school audits and photograph analysis of children's packed lunches. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2010 Feb;23(1):48–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.00996.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Eriksson Britt, Löf Marie, Forsum Elisabet. Body composition in full-term healthy infants measured with air displacement plethysmography at 1 and 12 weeks of age. Acta Paediatr. 2010 Apr;99(4):563–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01665.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Eriksson Britt, Henriksson Hanna, Löf Marie, Hannestad Ulf, Forsum Elisabet. Body-composition development during early childhood and energy expenditure in response to physical activity in 1.5-y-old children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Sep;96(3):567–73. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.022020. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=22836033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Henriksson Hanna, Forsum Elisabet, Löf Marie. Evaluation of Actiheart and a 7 d activity diary for estimating free-living total and activity energy expenditure using criterion methods in 1·5- and 3-year-old children. Br J Nutr. 2014 May 28;111(10):1830–40. doi: 10.1017/S0007114513004406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.National Food Administration . Weights for foods and dishes. Uppsala, Sweden: National Food Administration; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.National Food Administration (2014) [2014-11-28]. Swedish Food Database http://www.slv.se/en-gb/
  • 15.Almqvist Catarina, Adami Hans-Olov, Franks Paul W, Groop Leif, Ingelsson Erik, Kere Juha, Lissner Lauren, Litton Jan-Eric, Maeurer Markus, Michaëlsson Karl, Palmgren Juni, Pershagen Göran, Ploner Alexander, Sullivan Patrick F, Tybring Gunnel, Pedersen Nancy L. LifeGene--a large prospective population-based study of global relevance. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;26(1):67–77. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9521-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Khani Bahram Rashid, Ye Weimin, Terry Paul, Wolk Alicja. Reproducibility and validity of major dietary patterns among Swedish women assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire. J Nutr. 2004 Jun;134(6):1541–5. doi: 10.1093/jn/134.6.1541. http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15173426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hu FB, Rimm E, Smith-Warner SA, Feskanich D, Stampfer MJ, Ascherio A, Sampson L, Willett WC. Reproducibility and validity of dietary patterns assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Feb;69(2):243–9. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/69.2.243. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9989687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH. Establishing a standard definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: international survey. BMJ. 2000 May 6;320(7244):1240–3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7244.1240. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/10797032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Börnhorst C, Bel-Serrat S, Pigeot I, Huybrechts I, Ottavaere C, Sioen I, De Henauw S, Mouratidou T, Mesana MI, Westerterp K, Bammann K, Lissner L, Eiben G, Pala V, Rayson M, Krogh V, Moreno LA. Validity of 24-h recalls in (pre-)school aged children: comparison of proxy-reported energy intakes with measured energy expenditure. Clin Nutr. 2014 Feb;33(1):79–84. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.03.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Collins Clare E, Burrows Tracy L, Truby Helen, Morgan Philip J, Wright Ian R, Davies Peter SW, Callister Robin. Comparison of energy intake in toddlers assessed by food frequency questionnaire and total energy expenditure measured by the doubly labeled water method. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013 Mar;113(3):459–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Davies PS, Coward WA, Gregory J, White A, Mills A. Total energy expenditure and energy intake in the pre-school child: a comparison. Br J Nutr. 1994 Jul;72(1):13–20. doi: 10.1079/bjn19940005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kaskoun MC, Johnson RK, Goran MI. Comparison of energy intake by semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaire with total energy expenditure by the doubly labeled water method in young children. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jul;60(1):43–7. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/60.1.43. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=8017336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Livingstone MB, Prentice AM, Coward WA, Strain JJ, Black AE, Davies PS, Stewart CM, McKenna PG, Whitehead RG. Validation of estimates of energy intake by weighed dietary record and diet history in children and adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Jul;56(1):29–35. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/56.1.29. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=1609757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Reilly JJ, Montgomery C, Jackson D, MacRitchie J, Armstrong J. Energy intake by multiple pass 24 h recall and total energy expenditure: a comparison in a representative sample of 3-4-year-olds. Br J Nutr. 2001 Nov;86(5):601–5. doi: 10.1079/bjn2001449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Schoeller Dale A, Schoeller Dale A. Validation of habitual energy intake. Public Health Nutr. 2002 Dec;5(6A):883–8. doi: 10.1079/PHN2002378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hill RJ, Davies PS. The validity of self-reported energy intake as determined using the doubly labelled water technique. Br J Nutr. 2001 Apr;85(4):415–30. doi: 10.1079/bjn2000281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fomon SJ, Haschke F, Ziegler EE, Nelson SE. Body composition of reference children from birth to age 10 years. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982 May;35(5 Suppl):1169–75. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/35.5.1169. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=7081099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Roberts SB, Young VR. Energy costs of fat and protein deposition in the human infant. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Oct;48(4):951–5. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/48.4.951. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=3421204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Coward WA, Cole TJ. New Techniques in Nutritional Research. 9th edition. San Diego: Academic Press; 1991. The Doubly Labeled Water Method for the Measurement of Energy Expenditure in Humans: Risks and Benefits; pp. 139–176. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Speakman JR. Doubly labelled water. Theory and practice. 1st edition. London, UK: Chapman & Hall; 1997. [Google Scholar]

Articles from JMIR mHealth and uHealth are provided here courtesy of JMIR Publications Inc.

RESOURCES