Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre and The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jan;24(1):1-11. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020001718. Epub 2020 Jul 14.
To determine the reliability of streamlined data-gathering techniques for examining the price and affordability of a healthy (recommended) and unhealthy (current) diet. We additionally estimated the price and affordability of diets across socio-economic areas and quantified the influence of different pricing scenarios.
Following the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing (ASAP) protocol, we compared a cross-sectional sample of food and beverage pricing data collected using online data and phone calls (lower-resource streamlined techniques) with data collected in-store from the same retailers.
Food and beverage prices were collected from major supermarkets, fast food and alcohol retailers in eight conveniently sampled areas in Victoria, Australia (n 72 stores), stratified by area-level deprivation and remoteness.
This study did not involve human participants.
The biweekly price of a healthy diet was on average 21 % cheaper ($596) than an unhealthy diet ($721) for a four-person family using the streamlined techniques, which was comparable with estimates using in-store data (healthy: $594, unhealthy: $731). The diet price differential did not vary considerably across geographical areas (range: 18-23 %). Both diets were estimated to be unaffordable for families living on indicative low disposable household incomes and below the poverty line. The inclusion of generic brands notably reduced the prices of healthy and unhealthy diets (≥20 %), rendering both affordable against indicative low disposable household incomes. Inclusion of discounted prices marginally reduced diet prices (3 %).
Streamlined data-gathering techniques are a reliable method for regular, flexible and widespread monitoring of the price and affordability of population diets in areas where supermarkets have an online presence.
确定简化数据收集技术用于检查健康（推荐）和不健康（当前）饮食的价格和可负担性的可靠性。我们还估计了不同社会经济领域饮食的价格和可负担性，并量化了不同定价方案的影响。
根据澳大利亚健康饮食标准化可负担性和定价 (ASAP) 协议，我们比较了使用在线数据和电话收集的食物和饮料定价数据的横截面样本（资源较少的简化技术）与从同一零售商店内收集的数据。
在澳大利亚维多利亚州的八个便利抽样地区（n=72 家商店），根据地区贫困程度和偏远程度对大型超市、快餐和酒类零售商的食品和饮料价格进行分层。
本研究不涉及人类参与者。
使用简化技术，四口之家的健康饮食的两周价格平均比不健康饮食便宜 21%（$596 比$721），这与使用店内数据的估计值相当（健康饮食：$594，不健康饮食：$731）。饮食价格差异在地理区域之间没有太大变化（范围：18-23%）。对于生活在指示性低可支配家庭收入和贫困线以下的家庭来说，两种饮食都被认为是负担不起的。包括通用品牌显著降低了健康和不健康饮食的价格（≥20%），使两者都能负担得起指示性低可支配家庭收入。包括折扣价格略微降低了饮食价格（3%）。
简化的数据收集技术是一种可靠的方法，可用于在超市具有在线存在的地区定期、灵活和广泛监测人群饮食的价格和可负担性。
