The Price of Foods, Beverages, and Diets in Australia: An Updated Systematic Review.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition reviews Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1093/nutrit/nuae129
Emily Dawson, Alexandra Chung, Carmen Vargas, Kathryn Backholer, Amanda Lee, Meron Lewis, Ruby Brooks, Sally Schultz, Rebecca Bennett, Florentine Martino, Christina Zorbas
{"title":"The Price of Foods, Beverages, and Diets in Australia: An Updated Systematic Review.","authors":"Emily Dawson, Alexandra Chung, Carmen Vargas, Kathryn Backholer, Amanda Lee, Meron Lewis, Ruby Brooks, Sally Schultz, Rebecca Bennett, Florentine Martino, Christina Zorbas","doi":"10.1093/nutrit/nuae129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The price and affordability of food are priorities for public health and health equity; however, Australia lacks a consistent method to evaluate healthy versus unhealthy diets, creating a gap in routine food price reporting.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aimed to identify and summarize recent methods used to assess and monitor the price and/or affordability of food and beverages in Australia using a health lens.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Four academic databases (MEDLINE Complete, Global Health, CINAHL Complete, and Business Source Complete) were searched in English from 2016 to 2022. Relevant gray literature was searched through Google Scholar and government websites.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Five reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and full-text screening was conducted by 1 reviewer, with eligibility confirmed by a second reviewer. The quality of studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute \"Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies.\"</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>Twenty-five eligible studies were identified. Eleven studies used a version of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardized Affordability and Pricing protocol to collect prices for a \"healthy\" diet modelled on dietary guidelines and an \"unhealthy\" diet based on a habitual Australian diet. These studies consistently found unhealthy diets to be more expensive than healthy diets. Other identified methods included assessing the price of household diets across healthy baskets (n = 6), store types (n = 5), a planetary health diet (n = 1), packaged foods according to their Health Star Rating (n = 1), a fruit and vegetable basket (n = 1), school canteen foods against a traffic light system (n = 1), and weekly healthy meal plans (n = 1). Healthy diets tended to be less costly than less healthy diets, but both diets were often unaffordable in regional areas, for people on low incomes, and for First Nations peoples.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Consistent country-wide application of methods for monitoring the price and affordability of foods and diets in Australia is needed-including tailored approaches for priority groups.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022333531.</p>","PeriodicalId":19469,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuae129","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: The price and affordability of food are priorities for public health and health equity; however, Australia lacks a consistent method to evaluate healthy versus unhealthy diets, creating a gap in routine food price reporting.

Objective: This review aimed to identify and summarize recent methods used to assess and monitor the price and/or affordability of food and beverages in Australia using a health lens.

Data sources: Four academic databases (MEDLINE Complete, Global Health, CINAHL Complete, and Business Source Complete) were searched in English from 2016 to 2022. Relevant gray literature was searched through Google Scholar and government websites.

Data extraction: Five reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and full-text screening was conducted by 1 reviewer, with eligibility confirmed by a second reviewer. The quality of studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute "Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies."

Data analysis: Twenty-five eligible studies were identified. Eleven studies used a version of the Healthy Diets Australian Standardized Affordability and Pricing protocol to collect prices for a "healthy" diet modelled on dietary guidelines and an "unhealthy" diet based on a habitual Australian diet. These studies consistently found unhealthy diets to be more expensive than healthy diets. Other identified methods included assessing the price of household diets across healthy baskets (n = 6), store types (n = 5), a planetary health diet (n = 1), packaged foods according to their Health Star Rating (n = 1), a fruit and vegetable basket (n = 1), school canteen foods against a traffic light system (n = 1), and weekly healthy meal plans (n = 1). Healthy diets tended to be less costly than less healthy diets, but both diets were often unaffordable in regional areas, for people on low incomes, and for First Nations peoples.

Conclusion: Consistent country-wide application of methods for monitoring the price and affordability of foods and diets in Australia is needed-including tailored approaches for priority groups.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022333531.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚食品、饮料和饮食的价格:最新系统回顾。
背景:食品的价格和可负担性是公共卫生和健康公平的优先事项;然而,澳大利亚缺乏评估健康饮食与不健康饮食的一致方法,从而造成了常规食品价格报告的空白:本综述旨在确定和总结近期用于从健康角度评估和监测澳大利亚食品和饮料的价格和/或可负担性的方法:检索了 2016 年至 2022 年的四个英文学术数据库(MEDLINE Complete、Global Health、CINAHL Complete 和 Business Source Complete)。通过谷歌学术和政府网站搜索了相关灰色文献:五位审稿人筛选了标题和摘要,由一位审稿人进行全文筛选,并由第二位审稿人确认是否符合条件。研究质量采用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所的 "横断面研究分析核对表 "进行评估:共确定了 25 项符合条件的研究。有 11 项研究使用了澳大利亚健康饮食标准化可负担性和定价协议的一个版本,以膳食指南为模型收集 "健康 "饮食的价格,以澳大利亚习惯饮食为模型收集 "不健康 "饮食的价格。这些研究一致发现,不健康饮食比健康饮食更昂贵。其他已确定的方法包括评估健康篮子(n = 6)、商店类型(n = 5)、行星健康饮食(n = 1)、根据健康星级评定的包装食品(n = 1)、水果蔬菜篮子(n = 1)、学校食堂食品交通灯系统(n = 1)和每周健康膳食计划(n = 1)的家庭饮食价格。健康饮食的成本往往低于不那么健康的饮食,但这两种饮食在地区、低收入人群和原住民中往往都是负担不起的:结论:澳大利亚需要在全国范围内采用一致的方法来监测食品和膳食的价格及可负担性--包括为重点人群量身定制的方法:PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42022333531CRD42022333531。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition reviews
Nutrition reviews 医学-营养学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
121
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition Reviews is a highly cited, monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the publication of authoritative and critical literature reviews on current and emerging topics in nutrition science, food science, clinical nutrition, and nutrition policy. Readers of Nutrition Reviews include nutrition scientists, biomedical researchers, clinical and dietetic practitioners, and advanced students of nutrition.
期刊最新文献
Effects of intermittent dieting with break periods on body composition and metabolic adaptation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curcumin supplementation effect on liver enzymes in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Effect of breakfast protein intake on muscle mass and strength in adults: a scoping review. Effect of carotenoid supplementation on blood pressure in adults: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probiotics for adults with major depressive disorder compared with antidepressants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1