Creating a food environment scoring index for online food delivery outlets: Delphi study with Australian nutrition and public health professionals.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Rebecca Bennett, Christina Zorbas, Laura Alston, Cindy Needham
{"title":"Creating a food environment scoring index for online food delivery outlets: Delphi study with Australian nutrition and public health professionals.","authors":"Rebecca Bennett, Christina Zorbas, Laura Alston, Cindy Needham","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.12919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to develop a scoring index for the healthfulness of food outlet menu offerings available through Australian delivery platforms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12919","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to develop a scoring index for the healthfulness of food outlet menu offerings available through Australian delivery platforms.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

为在线食品配送网点创建食品环境评分指数:与澳大利亚营养和公共卫生专业人员的德尔菲研究。
目的:本研究旨在为通过澳大利亚外卖平台提供的食品出口菜单提供的健康评分指标。方法:采用德尔菲法在澳大利亚营养和公共卫生专家小组中就分配给在线食品网点的食品环境得分达成共识,按类型分类。根据之前的研究和外卖平台的范围,确定了36种食品出口类型。澳大利亚的营养和公共卫生专家被招募来完成一项在线德尔菲调查,根据这些餐厅的典型菜单,用-10(最不健康)到+10(最健康)的等级为这些餐厅的健康程度打分。第一轮调查于2023年7月至8月开始,为期约5周,第二轮调查于2023年9月开始,为期2周。每轮调查结束后,计算每种出口类型的平均食品环境得分、最低和最高食品环境得分以及标准差,并计算变异系数,以衡量数据在平均值附近的分布和响应分布的一致性程度。在第二轮调查之后,对结果进行评估,以征求参与者的一致意见。结果:54名参与者完成了第一轮调查,n=14名参与者完成了第二轮调查。大多数在线外卖网点的食品环境得分低于5分,被认为“不太健康”。参与者认为蔬菜水果店是最健康的出口类型(平均食品环境得分为8.83±0.37),酒类销售商店是最不健康的(得分为-8.10±1.14)。经过两轮调查,由于平均食物环境得分的标准偏差降低,该小组达成了共识。结论:本研究提供了一个专家知情的工具,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地应用该工具来了解快速发展的在线食品配送环境,包括随时间的变化和潜在干预领域。
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
Nutrition & Dietetics
Nutrition & Dietetics 医学-营养学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.10%
发文量
69
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition & Dietetics is the official journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Covering all aspects of food, nutrition and dietetics, the Journal provides a forum for the reporting, discussion and development of scientifically credible knowledge related to human nutrition and dietetics. Widely respected in Australia and around the world, Nutrition & Dietetics publishes original research, methodology analyses, research reviews and much more. The Journal aims to keep health professionals abreast of current knowledge on human nutrition and diet, and accepts contributions from around the world.
×
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