Bennett Rebecca, Zorbas Christina, Alston Laura, Needham Cindy
Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Deakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia.
Nutr Diet. 2025 Jun;82(3):283-291. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12919. Epub 2024 Dec 5.
This study aimed to develop a scoring index for the healthfulness of food outlet menu offerings available through Australian delivery platforms.
The Delphi method was employed to achieve consensus among a panel of Australian nutrition and public health experts regarding the food environment scores assigned to online food outlets, classified by type. From previous studies and scoping of delivery platforms, 36 food outlet types were identified. Australian nutrition and public health experts were recruited to complete an online Delphi survey to score the healthfulness of these outlets using a scale from -10 (least healthful) to +10 (most healthful), based on typical menu offerings. The first round of the survey was opened for approximately 5 weeks in July to August 2023, and the second round was opened for 2 weeks in September 2023. The mean food environment score, minimum and maximum awarded food environment score, and SD for each outlet type, and coefficient of variation was calculated after each survey round to provide a measure of the spread of the data around the mean and the degree of consistency in the distribution of responses. Following the second survey round, results were assessed for consensus among the participants.
Fifty-four participants completed the round one survey, and n=14 completed round two. The majority of online food delivery outlet types received a food environment score of less than +5, and were considered 'less healthful.' Participants scored greengrocers as the most healthful outlet type (mean food environment score of 8.83 ± 0.37) and liquor selling stores as the least healthful (score of -8.10 ± 1.14). The group reached consensus after two survey rounds due to decreases in the standard deviations of mean food environment scores.
This study provides an expert-informed tool, the DIGIASSESS tool, that can be easily applied by researchers, policy makers, health workers and public health professionals to understand the rapidly evolving online food delivery environment, including changes over time and areas for potential intervention.
本研究旨在制定一项评分指数，用于评估通过澳大利亚外卖平台提供的食品商家菜单的健康程度。
采用德尔菲法，使澳大利亚营养与公共卫生专家小组就按类型分类的在线食品商家的食品环境得分达成共识。通过对以往研究和外卖平台的梳理，确定了36种食品商家类型。招募澳大利亚营养与公共卫生专家完成一项在线德尔菲调查，根据典型菜单，使用从-10（最不健康）到+10（最健康）的量表对这些商家的健康程度进行评分。第一轮调查于2023年7月至8月开放约5周，第二轮于2023年9月开放2周。在每轮调查后，计算每种商家类型的平均食品环境得分、最低和最高食品环境得分、标准差以及变异系数，以衡量数据围绕均值的离散程度和回答分布的一致程度。第二轮调查后，评估参与者之间的结果是否达成共识。
54名参与者完成了第一轮调查，14名完成了第二轮调查。大多数在线食品外卖商家类型的食品环境得分低于+5，被认为“不太健康”。参与者将蔬菜水果店评为最健康的商家类型（平均食品环境得分为8.83±0.37），酒类销售店评为最不健康的（得分为-8.10±1.14）。由于平均食品环境得分的标准差降低，该小组在两轮调查后达成了共识。
本研究提供了一种由专家提供信息的工具，即DIGIASSESS工具，研究人员、政策制定者、卫生工作者和公共卫生专业人员可以轻松应用该工具来了解快速发展的在线食品外卖环境，包括随时间的变化以及潜在干预领域。
