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.
Read full abstract