Technology-assisted 24-h dietary recalls (24HRs) have been widely adopted in population nutrition surveillance. Evaluations of 24HRs inform improvements, but direct comparisons of 24HR methods for accuracy in reference to a measure of true intake are rarely undertaken in a single study population. To compare the accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation of 4 technology-assisted dietary assessment methods relative to true intake across breakfast, lunch, and dinner. In a controlled feeding study with a crossover design, 152 participants [55% women; mean age 32 y, standard deviation (SD) 11; mean body mass index 26 kg/m², SD 5] were randomized to 1 of 3 separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods and beverages consumed. Participants undertook a 24HR the following day [Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool-Australia (ASA24); Intake24-Australia; mobile Food Record-Trained Analyst (mFR-TA); or Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour recall (IA-24HR)]. When assigned to IA-24HR, participants referred to images captured of their meals using the mobile Food Record (mFR) app. True and estimated energy and nutrient intakes were compared, and differences among methods were assessed using linear mixed models. The mean difference between true and estimated energy intake as a percentage of true intake was 5.4% (95% CI: 0.6, 10.2%) using ASA24, 1.7% (95% CI: -2.9, 6.3%) using Intake24, 1.3% (95% CI: -1.1, 3.8%) using mFR-TA, and 15.0% (95% CI: 11.6, 18.3%) using IA-24HR. The variances of estimated and true energy intakes were statistically significantly different for all methods (P < 0.01) except Intake24 (P = 0.1). Differential accuracy in nutrient estimation was present among the methods. Under controlled conditions, Intake24, ASA24, and mFR-TA estimated average energy and nutrient intakes with reasonable validity, but intake distributions were estimated accurately by Intake24 only (energy and protein). This study may inform considerations regarding instruments of choice in future population surveillance. This trial was registered at Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as ACTRN12621000209897.

Mandated policies to improve food environments in public settings are an important strategy for governments. Most Australian governments have mandated policies or voluntary standards for healthy food procurement in healthcare facilities, however, implementation and compliance are poor. A better understanding of the support required to successfully implement such policies is needed. This research explored food retailers’ experiences in implementing a mandated food and nutrition policy (the Policy) in healthcare settings to identify barriers, enablers, and impacts of compliance. Three 90-min workshops facilitated by two public health practitioners were undertaken with 12 food retailers responsible for operating 44 outlets across four hospitals in Perth, Western Australia. Workshop discussions were transcribed non-verbatim and inductive thematic content was analyzed. Three main themes were identified: (1) food retailers had come to accept their role in implementing the Policy; (2) the Policy made it difficult for food retailers to operate successfully, and; (3) food retailers needed help and support to implement the Policy. Findings indicate the cost of implementation is borne by food retailers. Communications campaigns, centralized databases of classified products, reporting frameworks, recognition of achievements, and dedicated technical expertise would support achieving policy compliance. Feasibility assessments prior to policy implementation are recommended for policy success.

Background: The assessment of dietary intake underpins population nutrition surveillance and nutritional epidemiology and is essential to inform effective public health policies and programs. Technological advances in dietary assessment that use images and automated methods have the potential to improve accuracy, respondent burden, and cost; however, they need to be evaluated to inform large-scale use. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of 3 technology-assisted 24-hour dietary recall (24HR) methods relative to observed intake across 3 meals. Methods: Using a controlled feeding study design, 24HR data collected using 3 methods will be obtained for comparison with observed intake. A total of 150 healthy adults, aged 18 to 70 years, will be recruited and will complete web-based demographic and psychosocial questionnaires and cognitive tests. Participants will attend a university study center on 3 separate days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive documentation of the foods and beverages consumed and their amounts. Following each feeding day, participants will complete a 24HR process using 1 of 3 methods: the Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool, Intake24, or the Image-Assisted mobile Food Record 24-Hour Recall. The sequence of the 3 methods will be randomized, with each participant exposed to each method approximately 1 week apart. Acceptability and the preferred 24HR method will be assessed using a questionnaire. Estimates of energy, nutrient, and food group intake and portion sizes from each 24HR method will be compared with the observed intake for each day. Linear mixed models will be used, with 24HR method and method order as fixed effects, to assess differences in the 24HR methods. Reporting bias will be assessed by examining the ratios of reported 24HR intake to observed intake. Food and beverage omission and intrusion rates will be calculated, and differences by 24HR method will be assessed using chi-square tests. Psychosocial, demographic, and cognitive factors associated with energy misestimation will be evaluated using chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression. The financial costs, time costs, and cost-effectiveness of each 24HR method will be assessed and compared using repeated measures analysis of variance tests. Results: Participant recruitment commenced in March 2021 and is planned to be completed by the end of 2021. Conclusions: This protocol outlines the methodology of a study that will evaluate the accuracy, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of 3 technology-enabled dietary assessment methods. This will inform the selection of dietary assessment methods in future studies on nutrition surveillance and epidemiology. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000209897; https://tinyurl.com/2p9fpf2s International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32891

Background: Excess weight is a major risk factor for chronic diseases. In Australia, over 60% of adults are overweight or obese. The overconsumption of energy-dense nutrient-poor (EDNP) foods and low physical activity (PA) levels are key factors contributing to population obesity. New cost-effective approaches to improve population diet and PA behaviors are needed. Objective: This 1-year randomized controlled trial (6-month intervention and 6-month follow-up) aims to investigate whether a tailored intervention using mobile technology can improve diet and PA behaviors leading to weight loss in adults (aged 18-65 years) who are overweight or obese and recruited through a social marketing campaign (LiveLighter). Methods: All eligible participants will provide data on demographics and lifestyle behaviors online at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Using two-stage randomization, participants will be allocated into one of three conditions (n=200 per group): tailored feedback delivered via email at seven time points, informed by objective dietary (mobile food record app) and activity (wearable activity monitor) assessment; active control receiving no tailored feedback, but undergoing the same objective assessments as tailored feedback; and online control receiving no tailored feedback or objective assessments. Primary outcome measures at 6 and 12 months are changes in body mass, EDNP food and beverage consumption, and daily moderate-to-vigorous PA (measured via accelerometry). Secondary outcomes include change in fruit and vegetable consumption, daily sedentary behaviors, and cost effectiveness. Results: Enrolment commenced in August 2017. Primary outcomes at 12 months will be available for analysis from September 2019. Conclusions: Tailored email feedback provided to individuals may deliver a cost-effective strategy to overcome existing barriers to improving diet and PA. If found to be successful and cost effective, upscaling this intervention for inclusion in larger-scale interventions is highly feasible. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000554369; https://www.anzctr.org.au /Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371325&isReview=true International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12782

Environmentally sustainable diets are increasingly aspired to in food-based dietary guidelines across the world. However, little is known about consumer attitudes toward these diets when making food decisions. This study aimed to identify the demographic characteristics of Australian adults based on the level of attention they paid to the healthfulness of their diet, their consideration of the level of food processing, and their concern about household food waste and sustainable packaging disposal. Adults aged from 18 to over 75 years (n = 540) were surveyed online. Thirty-seven percent were concerned about sustainable food waste, 28% considered the level of food processing when making food decisions, and 23% paid attention to the healthfulness of the food they ate. Adults who had higher educational attainment (above Year 12) were twice as likely to be concerned about food waste and sustainable packaging disposal (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29–3.4), and processing levels (OR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.23–3.42) (controlling for age and gender). Those earning an income over AUD$100,000 were twice as likely to pay attention to the healthfulness of their food choices than those earning less than AUD$50,000 (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.28–3.74). Only 9% percent were concerned about or paid attention to all three of the components of healthy sustainable diets investigated, and 45% paid no attention and were not concerned about all three components. These findings suggest there is a need to educate the public to raise awareness of and concern for healthy, minimally processed, and sustainable food choices.

Background: Technology-assisted 24-hour dietary recall (24HR) methods offer the potential for scalable population dietary assessment, but current challenges include balancing accuracy and cost against participant burden and acceptability of these methods. Qualitative methods present a novel approach to understanding potential barriers and enablers to the acceptability of 24HR methods, but remain relatively unexplored. Objective: This study aimed to explore users’ experience, acceptability, and preferences for 3 technology-assisted 24HR methods. Methods: Participants in a crossover controlled feeding study were invited to undertake a poststudy interview. Initially, the feeding study participants were randomized into one of three separate feeding days where they consumed breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a single day. On the following day, they undertook a 24HR via the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24), Intake24, or an Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour dietary recall (IA-24HR). When assigned to IA-24HR, participants viewed the images they captured with a mobile food record (mFR) app on the feeding day during the interview. On completing all 3 methods, 26 participants (ages 21 to 56 years) undertook semistructured interviews. The interview audio recordings were transcribed, and inductive content analysis was undertaken. Results: Overall, participants wanted the 24HR methods to be easy, with the technology features of all methods considered helpful. A total of 5 content categories described users’ experiences of the three 24HR methods: (1) “Put my food in the list,” (2) “It’s really hard to know portions,” (3) ASA24 “was a painful process,” (4) access to “images helped jog my memory,” (5) Intake24 is “fairly quick,” and (6) IA-24HR method preference. Participants expressed a preference for taking images with the mFR app. IA-24HR helped participants recall food and beverages consumed and increased perceptions of recall accuracy. Conclusions: This novel qualitative research found that 24HR methods need to be as easy as possible for users. The participant burden of food and beverage identification and portion size estimation was evident across methods. Findings highlight the importance of using qualitative methods to explore user preferences for dietary assessment methods and confirm the need to reduce the user burden associated with 24HR methods. People want embedded technologies to enhance digitized versions of the traditional 24HR methods. The use of their own food images within the mFR app is an example of digital advancements within scalable 24-hour dietary assessments. Trial Registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000209897; www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=381165 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/32891