Photography-based mobile assessment of alcohol use in young adults: Feasibility and comparison to standard assessment methodology (Preprint)
BACKGROUND Heavy alcohol use is prevalent among young adults and may contribute to obesity. However, measurement tools for assessing caloric intake from alcohol are limited and rely on self-report, which is prone to biases. OBJECTIVE The purpose of the pilot study was to conduct feasibility testing of SmartIntake®, a photo-based smartphone app, to assess alcohol use among young adults. Aims consisted of 1) quantifying the ability of SmartIntake® to capture drinking behavior; 2) assessing app usability with the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ); 3) conducting a qualitative interview; and 4) comparing preference, compliance, and alcohol use estimates (calories, grams per drinking episode) between SmartIntake® and online diet recalls that participants completed for a parent study. METHODS College students (N=15) who endorsed a pattern of heavy drinking were recruited from a larger study examining the impact of drinking on weight. Participants used SmartIntake® to send photographs of all alcohol and food intake over a three-day period, and then completed a follow up interview and the CSUQ. CSUQ items range from 1-7, with lower scores indicating greater usability. Total number of drinking occasions was determined by adding the number of drinking occasions captured by SmartIntake® plus the number of drinking occasions participants reported that they missed capturing. Compliance was defined by the number of days participants provided food/beverage photo data through the app, or the number of diet recalls completed. RESULTS The SmartIntake® app captured 13 of 15 (87%) drinking occasions. Participants rated the app as highly usable in the CSUQ (M= 2.28). Most participants (93%) preferred using SmartIntake® vs. recalls and compliance was significantly higher with SmartIntake® than recalls (93% vs 78%; P= .04). Alcohol grams and calories per drinking occasion were not significantly different between the two methods (P values range .25-.99); however triple the number of participants submitted alcohol reports with SmartIntake® compared to the diet recalls (SmartIntake® 9/15 vs recalls 3/15; P=.06). CONCLUSIONS SmartIntake® was well accepted by college students who drink heavily and captured most drinking occasions. Participants had higher compliance with SmartIntake® compared to diet recalls and triple the number of participants reported alcohol use with SmartIntake®, suggesting this method may be well suited to assessing alcohol use in young adults.