Dietary supplement use among lactating mothers following different dietary patterns - an online survey.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding is important for the healthy growth and development of newborns, and the nutrient composition of human milk can be affected by maternal nutrition and supplementation. In Germany, iodine supplementation is recommended for all lactating mothers, and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation is recommended for mothers with inadequate or no fish intake. Vitamin B12 supplementation is required for strict vegans during lactation, and other nutrient supplementation may be necessary depending on the individual's nutritional status. To address the lack of data on dietary supplements used by lactating mothers following a vegetarian or vegan diet, an online survey was conducted in Germany, with a focus on iodine, DHA, and vitamin B12. METHODS: Study participants were asked to report whether they followed specific dietary patterns (omnivorous [OM], vegetarian [VT], vegan [VN]) as well as their use of dietary supplements. Relationships between diets and supplement use were analyzed using chi-square tests. RESULTS: 2054 lactating women were included (1240 OM, 410 VT, and 404 VN) in this analysis. Within OM, VT and VN, at least one dietary supplement was taken by 67.3%, 84.9% and 98.0% respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, 53.2% OM, 66.8% VT, 88.4% VN reported taking at least one supplement containing iodine (p < 0.001). 54.6% OM, 61.7% VT and 58.2% VN reported supplements containing vitamin B12, while 34.1% OM, 40.2% VT and 38.6% VN mentioned supplements containing DHA (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: More than half of the participants reported the use of supplements during lactation with the highest proportion in vegans. However, over one third of the mothers did not report supplementing with iodine, regardless of their dietary pattern and most participants also did not report DHA supplements. It is worrisome that a high number of vegans did not report vitamin B12 supplementation, but this could be partly due to issues with reporting. It is crucial to provide further education to breastfeeding mothers about the importance of taking micronutrient supplements, especially for those following a vegetarian or vegan diet. This will help ensure that mothers and their breastfed infants receive optimal nutrition for a healthy development.

Barriers to and Facilitators for Using Nutrition Apps: Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework.

BACKGROUND: Nutrition apps are effective in changing eating behavior and diet-related health risk factors. However, while they may curb growing overweight and obesity rates, widespread adoption is yet to be achieved. Hence, profound knowledge regarding factors motivating and hindering (long-term) nutrition app use is crucial for developing design guidelines aimed at supporting uptake and prolonged use of nutrition apps. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we synthesized the literature on barriers to and facilitators for nutrition app use across disciplines including empirical qualitative and quantitative studies with current users, ex-users, and nonusers of nutrition apps. METHODS: A systematic literature search including 6 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO, PSYNDEX, PsycArticles, and SPORTDiscus) as well as backward and forward citation search was conducted. Search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the planned data extraction process were preregistered. All empirical qualitative and quantitative studies published in German or English were eligible for inclusion if they examined adolescents (aged 13-18) or adults who were either current users, ex-users, and nonusers of nutrition apps. Based on qualitative content analysis, extracted individual barriers and facilitators were grouped into categories. RESULTS: A total of 28 publications were identified as eligible. A framework with a 3-level hierarchy was designed which grouped 328 individual barriers and facilitators into 23 subcategories, 12 categories, and 4 clusters that focus on either the individual user (goal setting and goal striving, motivation, routines, lack of awareness of knowledge), different aspects of the app and the smartphone (features, usability of the app or food database, technical issues, data security, accuracy/trustworthiness, costs), positive and negative outcomes of nutrition app use, or interactions between the user and their social environment. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting conceptual framework underlines a pronounced diversity of reasons for (not) using nutrition apps, indicating that there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach for uptake and prolonged use of nutrition apps. Hence, tailoring nutrition apps to needs of specific user groups seems promising for increasing engagement.

Occurrence of and Reasons for "Missing Events" in Mobile Dietary Assessments: Results From Three Event-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment Studies.

BACKGROUND: Establishing a methodology for assessing nutritional behavior comprehensively and accurately poses a great challenge. Mobile technologies such as mobile image-based food recording apps enable eating events to be assessed in the moment in real time, thereby reducing memory biases inherent in retrospective food records. However, users might find it challenging to take images of the food they consume at every eating event over an extended period, which might lead to incomplete records of eating events (missing events). OBJECTIVE: Analyzing data from 3 studies that used mobile image-based food recording apps and varied in their technical enrichment, this study aims to assess how often eating events (meals and snacks) were missed over a period of 8 days in a naturalistic setting by comparing the number of recorded events with the number of normative expected events, over time, and with recollections of missing events. METHODS: Participants in 3 event-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies using mobile image-based dietary assessments were asked to record all eating events (study 1, N=38, 1070 eating events; study 2, N=35, 934 eating events; study 3, N=110, 3469 eating events). Study 1 used a basic app; study 2 included 1 fixed reminder and the possibility to add meals after the actual eating events occurred instead of in the moment (addendum); and study 3 included 2 fixed reminders, an addendum feature, and the option to record skipped meals. The number of recalled missed events and their reasons were assessed by semistructured interviews after the EMA period (studies 1 and 2) and daily questionnaires (study 3). RESULTS: Overall, 183 participants reported 5473 eating events. Although the momentary adherence rate as indexed by a comparison with normative expected events was generally high across all 3 studies, a differential pattern of results emerged with a higher rate of logged meals in the more technically intensive study 3. Multilevel models for the logging trajectories of reported meals in all 3 studies showed a significant, albeit small, decline over time (b=-.11 to -.14, Ps<.001, pseudo-R²=0.04-0.06), mainly because of a drop in reported snacks between days 1 and 2. Intraclass coefficients indicated that 38% or less of the observed variance was because of individual differences. The most common reasons for missing events were competing activities and technical issues, whereas situational barriers were less important. CONCLUSIONS: Three different indicators (normative, time stability, and recalled missing events) consistently indicated missing events. However, given the intensive nature of diet EMA protocols, the effect sizes were rather small and the logging trajectories over time were remarkably stable. Moreover, the individual's actual state and context seemed to exert a greater influence on adherence rates than stable individual differences, which emphasizes the need for a more nuanced understanding of the factors that affect momentary adherence.

Why We Eat What We Eat: Assessing Dispositional and In-the-Moment Eating Motives by Using Ecological Momentary Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Why do we eat? Our motives for eating are diverse, ranging from hunger and liking to social norms and affect regulation. Although eating motives can vary from eating event to eating event, which implies substantial moment-to-moment differences, current ways of measuring eating motives rely on single timepoint questionnaires that assess eating motives as situation-stable dispositions (traits). However, mobile technologies including smartphones allow eating events and motives to be captured in real time and real life, thus capturing experienced eating motives in-the-moment (states). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine differences between why people think they eat (trait motives) and why they eat in the moment of consumption (state motives) by comparing a dispositional (trait) and an in-the-moment (state) assessment of eating motives. METHODS: A total of 15 basic eating motives included in The Eating Motivation Survey (ie, liking, habit, need and hunger, health, convenience, pleasure, traditional eating, natural concerns, sociability, price, visual appeal, weight control, affect regulation, social norms, and social image) were assessed in 35 participants using 2 methodological approaches: (1) a single timepoint dispositional assessment and (2) a smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) across 8 days (N=888 meals) capturing eating motives in the moment of eating. Similarities between dispositional and in-the-moment eating motive profiles were assessed according to 4 different indices of profile similarity, that is, overall fit, shape, scatter, and elevation. Moreover, a visualized person × motive data matrix was created to visualize and analyze between- and within-person differences in trait and state eating motives. RESULTS: Similarity analyses yielded a good overall fit between the trait and state eating motive profiles across participants, indicated by a double-entry intraclass correlation of 0.52 (P<.001). However, although trait and state motives revealed a comparable rank order (r=0.65; P<.001), trait motives overestimated 12 of 15 state motives (P<.001; d=1.97). Specifically, the participants assumed that 6 motives (need and hunger, price, habit, sociability, traditional eating, and natural concerns) are more essential for eating than they actually were in the moment (d>0.8). Furthermore, the visualized person × motive data matrix revealed substantial interindividual differences in intraindividual motive profiles. CONCLUSIONS: For a comprehensive understanding of why we eat what we eat, dispositional assessments need to be extended by in-the-moment assessments of eating motives. Smartphone-based EMAs reveal considerable intra- and interindividual differences in eating motives, which are not captured by single timepoint dispositional assessments. Targeting these differences between why people think they eat what they eat and why they actually eat in the moment may hold great promise for tailored mobile health interventions facilitating behavior changes.