↓ Skip to main content

Testing the price and affordability of healthy and current (unhealthy) diets and the potential impacts of policy change in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
21 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
90 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Testing the price and affordability of healthy and current (unhealthy) diets and the potential impacts of policy change in Australia
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2996-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda J. Lee, Sarah Kane, Rebecca Ramsey, Elizabeth Good, Mathew Dick

Abstract

Price and affordability of foods are important determinants of health. Targeted food pricing policies may help improve population diets. However, methods producing comparable data to inform relevant policy decisions are lacking in Australia and globally. The objective was to develop and pilot standardised methods to assess the price, relative price and affordability of healthy (recommended) and current (unhealthy) diets and test impacts of a potential policy change. Methods followed the optimal approach proposed by INFORMAS using recent Australian dietary intake data and guidelines. Draft healthy and current (unhealthy) diet baskets were developed for five household structures. Food prices were collected in stores in a high and low SES location in Brisbane, Australia. Diet prices were calculated and compared with household incomes, and with potential changes to the Australian Taxation System. Wilcoxen-signed rank tests were used to compare differences in price. The draft tools and protocols were deemed acceptable at household level, but methods could be refined. All households spend more on current (unhealthy) diets than required to purchase healthy (recommended) diets, with the majority (53-64 %) of the food budget being spent on 'discretionary' choices, including take-away foods and alcohol. A healthy diet presently costs between 20-31 % of disposable income of low income households, but would become unaffordable for these families under proposed changes to expand the GST to apply to all foods in Australia. Results confirmed that diet pricing methods providing meaningful, comparable data to inform potential fiscal and health policy actions can be developed, but draft tools should be refined. Results suggest that healthy diets can be more affordable than current (unhealthy) diets in Australia, but other factors may be as important as price in determining food choices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 136 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 22%
Student > Master 25 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Researcher 16 12%
Other 6 4%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 29 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 37 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 246. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2019.
All research outputs
#80,719
of 17,604,218 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#70
of 11,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,204
of 271,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,604,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them