Dawson Emily, Chung Alexandra, Vargas Carmen, Backholer Kathryn, Lee Amanda, Lewis Meron, Brooks Ruby, Schultz Sally, Bennett Rebecca, Martino Florentine, Zorbas Christina
Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Institute for Health Transformation, Geelong, 3220, Australia.
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, 3800, Australia.
Nutr Rev. 2025 Mar 1;83(3):525-538. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuae129.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022333531.
食品价格及可承受性是公共卫生和健康公平性的优先事项；然而，澳大利亚缺乏一种一致的方法来评估健康饮食与不健康饮食，这导致日常食品价格报告存在缺口。
本综述旨在识别并总结近期使用健康视角评估和监测澳大利亚食品和饮料价格及/或可承受性的方法。
2016年至2022年期间，以英文检索了四个学术数据库（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。
五名评审员筛选标题和摘要，由一名评审员进行全文筛选，另一名评审员确认入选资格。使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的“分析性横断面研究清单”评估研究质量。
确定了25项符合条件的研究。11项研究使用了澳大利亚健康饮食标准化可承受性和定价方案的一个版本，以收集基于饮食指南的“健康”饮食以及基于澳大利亚习惯饮食的“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。其他确定的方法包括评估不同健康篮子（n = 6）、商店类型（n = 5）、行星健康饮食（n = 1）、根据健康星级评级的包装食品（n = 1）、水果和蔬菜篮子（n = 1）、学校食堂食品与交通信号灯系统对照（n = 1）以及每周健康饮食计划（n = 1）的家庭饮食价格。健康饮食往往比不太健康的饮食成本更低，但在偏远地区、低收入人群以及原住民中，这两种饮食通常都难以承受。
澳大利亚需要在全国范围内一致应用监测食品和饮食价格及可承受性的方法，包括针对优先群体的定制方法。
PROSPERO注册号CRD42022333531。
