The healthiness of Australian food outlets available through online delivery platforms, by level of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Rebecca Bennett , Laura Alston , Christina Zorbas , Sachin Wasnik , Claire Lemke , Cindy Needham
{"title":"The healthiness of Australian food outlets available through online delivery platforms, by level of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness","authors":"Rebecca Bennett ,&nbsp;Laura Alston ,&nbsp;Christina Zorbas ,&nbsp;Sachin Wasnik ,&nbsp;Claire Lemke ,&nbsp;Cindy Needham","doi":"10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Online food delivery platforms are an emerging but poorly understood aspect of food retail environments. We collected data via web scraping methods from the two leading online food delivery platforms in Victoria, Australia, identifying 11,154 food outlets from Menulog, and 12,939 from Uber Eats (with 21,733 unique outlets available across both platforms). Outlets were classified according to their healthiness using a tool developed with Australian dietitians and public health nutritionists, and assigned a food environment score. Area level (suburb/neighbourhood) socioeconomic disadvantage was determined using the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage, and relative remoteness was determined using both the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia and the Modified Monash Model. Across both food delivery platforms, approximately 15% of food outlets were classified as “unhealthy”, 82% were classified as “less healthy”, and 3% were classified as “healthy”. More food outlets were available in areas of socioeconomic advantage, and in metropolitan areas. Food environment scores indicated that unhealthy outlets were significantly more available in areas with higher socioeconomic disadvantage and greater relative remoteness. Disparities in the healthiness of food outlets available through online food delivery platforms may have a negative influence on the purchasing and dietary behaviours of residents in these areas, thereby widening diet related health inequalities. Further research is required to understand the potential influence of online food delivery platforms on inequities in population diets and health.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49302,"journal":{"name":"Health & Place","volume":"90 ","pages":"Article 103380"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Place","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829224002089","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Online food delivery platforms are an emerging but poorly understood aspect of food retail environments. We collected data via web scraping methods from the two leading online food delivery platforms in Victoria, Australia, identifying 11,154 food outlets from Menulog, and 12,939 from Uber Eats (with 21,733 unique outlets available across both platforms). Outlets were classified according to their healthiness using a tool developed with Australian dietitians and public health nutritionists, and assigned a food environment score. Area level (suburb/neighbourhood) socioeconomic disadvantage was determined using the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage, and relative remoteness was determined using both the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia and the Modified Monash Model. Across both food delivery platforms, approximately 15% of food outlets were classified as “unhealthy”, 82% were classified as “less healthy”, and 3% were classified as “healthy”. More food outlets were available in areas of socioeconomic advantage, and in metropolitan areas. Food environment scores indicated that unhealthy outlets were significantly more available in areas with higher socioeconomic disadvantage and greater relative remoteness. Disparities in the healthiness of food outlets available through online food delivery platforms may have a negative influence on the purchasing and dietary behaviours of residents in these areas, thereby widening diet related health inequalities. Further research is required to understand the potential influence of online food delivery platforms on inequities in population diets and health.
按社会经济弱势程度和偏远程度分列的通过在线外卖平台提供的澳大利亚食品店的健康程度。
在线食品配送平台是食品零售环境中一个新兴的方面,但人们对其了解甚少。我们从澳大利亚维多利亚州的两个主要在线食品外卖平台上通过网络刮擦方法收集数据,从 Menulog 上识别出 11,154 家食品店,从 Uber Eats 上识别出 12,939 家食品店(两个平台上共有 21,733 家独特的食品店)。我们使用与澳大利亚营养师和公共卫生营养学家共同开发的工具,根据食品店的健康程度对其进行分类,并给予食品环境评分。地区级(郊区/社区)社会经济劣势通过 "地区社会经济相对劣势指数"(Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage)来确定,相对偏远则通过 "澳大利亚可达性/偏远指数"(Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia)和 "修正莫纳什模型"(Modified Monash Model)来确定。在这两种食品配送平台上,约有 15%的食品店被归类为 "不健康",82%的食品店被归类为 "不太健康",3%的食品店被归类为 "健康"。在社会经济条件优越的地区和大都市,有更多的食品店。食品环境得分表明,在社会经济条件较差和相对偏远的地区,不健康食品店明显较多。通过网络食品配送平台提供的食品店在健康方面的差异可能会对这些地区居民的购买和饮食行为产生负面影响,从而扩大与饮食相关的健康不平等。要了解在线食品配送平台对居民饮食和健康不平等的潜在影响,还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health & Place
Health & Place PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
176
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: he journal is an interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the study of all aspects of health and health care in which place or location matters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信