Qualitative Evaluation of a Diet Self-Monitoring Tool in a Sample of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adherence to diet self-monitoring tools typically declines over time. Diet self-monitoring tools often ask people to itemize their foods and record their serving sizes. This method of tracking does not conform to food guides that resemble a plate. The objective of this study is to explore the perceptions of healthy older adults on the usability of a traditional food journal (Journal) compared to a simplified plate-based (Plate) tool based on the 2019 Canada's Food Guide. A crossover study design was used to evaluate the two tools. Participants (n = 48) were randomized to track their food on three days using either the Journal or the Plate for one week then the other tool for the following week. Once complete, 45 participants completed semi-structured interviews to assess their perceptions of the tools and their preferences. Results were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify emerging themes. The main themes identified for the Plate were “easy”, “visual”, and “quick” whereas for the Journal were “detail”, “quantification”, and “familiarity”, with 46.7% and 46.7% preferring the Plate and Journal respectively (6.7% preferred neither tool). When asked about using the tools for future dietary changes, 62.2% and 31.1% preferred the Plate and Journal respectively (6.7% preferred neither tool). A simplified tool such as a plate is an acceptable self-monitoring tool for older adults. Future studies will be test adherence to self-monitoring using this simplified plate based self-monitoring tool. R. Howard Webster Foundation
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".