Cost-Benefit and Cost-Utility Analyses to Demonstrate the Potential Value-for-Money of Supermarket Shelf Tags Promoting Healthier Packaged Products in Australia.

The supermarket environment impacts the healthiness of food purchased and consumed. Shelf tags that alert customers to healthier packaged products can improve the healthiness of overall purchases. This study assessed the potential value-for-money of implementing a three-year shelf tag intervention across all major supermarket chains in Australia. Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) and cost-utility analyses (CUA) were conducted based on results of a 12-week non-randomised controlled trial of a shelf tag intervention in seven Australian supermarkets. The change in energy density of all packaged foods purchased during the trial was used to estimate population-level changes in mean daily energy intake. A multi-state, multiple-cohort Markov model estimated the subsequent obesity-related health and healthcare cost outcomes over the lifetime of the 2019 Australian population. The CBA and CUA took societal and healthcare sector perspectives, respectively. The intervention was estimated to produce a mean reduction in population body weight of 1.09 kg. The net present value of the intervention was approximately AUD 17 billion (B). Over 98% of the intervention costs were borne by supermarkets. CUA findings were consistent with the CBA-the intervention was dominant, producing both health benefits and cost-savings. Shelf tags are likely to offer excellent value-for-money from societal and healthcare sector perspectives.

Factors Influencing Implementation, Sustainability and Scalability of Healthy Food Retail Interventions: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

The aim of this systematic review of reviews was to synthesise the evidence on factors influencing the implementation, sustainability and scalability of food retail interventions to improve the healthiness of food purchased by consumers. A search strategy to identify reviews published up until June 2020 was applied to four databases. The Risk of Bias in Systematic Review tool was used. Review findings were synthesised narratively using the socio-ecological model. A total of 25 reviews met the inclusion criteria. A number of factors influenced implementation; these included retailers' and consumers' knowledge and preferences regarding healthy food; establishing trust and relationships; perceived consumer demand for healthy food; profitability; store infrastructure; organizational support, including resources; and enabling policies that promote health. Few reviews reported on factors influencing sustainability or scalability of the interventions. While there is a large and rapidly growing body of evidence on factors influencing implementation of interventions, more work is needed to identify factors associated with their sustainability and scalability. These findings can be used to develop implementation strategies that consider the multiple levels of influence (individual, intrapersonal and environmental) to better support implementation of healthy food retail interventions.

Costing recommended (healthy) and current (unhealthy) diets in urban and inner regional areas of Australia using remote price collection methods.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost and affordability of two fortnightly diets (representing the national guidelines and current consumption) across areas containing Australia's major supermarkets. DESIGN: The Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing protocol was used. SETTING: Price data were collected online and via phone calls in fifty-one urban and inner regional locations across Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: Healthy diets were consistently less expensive than current (unhealthy) diets. Nonetheless, healthy diets would cost 25-26 % of the disposable income for low-income households and 30-31 % of the poverty line. Differences in gross incomes (the most available income metric which overrepresents disposable income) drove national variations in diet affordability (from 14 % of the median gross household incomes in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory to 25 % of the median gross household income in Tasmania). CONCLUSIONS: In Australian cities and regional areas with major supermarkets, access to affordable diets remains problematic for families receiving low incomes. These findings are likely to be exacerbated in outer regional and remote areas (not included in this study). To make healthy diets economically appealing, policies that reduce the (absolute and relative) costs of healthy diets and increase the incomes of Australians living in poverty are required.

The 'Eat Well @ IGA' healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation and long-term maintenance of healthy supermarkets initiatives are crucial to achieving potential population health benefits. Understanding barriers and enablers of implementation of real-world trials will enhance wide-scale implementation. This process evaluation of a healthy supermarket intervention sought to describe (i) customer, retailer and stakeholder perspectives on the intervention; (ii) intervention implementation; and (iii) implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS: Eat Well @ IGA was a 12-month randomised controlled trial conducted in 11 Independent Grocers of Australia (IGA) chain supermarkets in regional Victoria, Australia (5 intervention and 6 wait-listed control stores). Intervention components included trolley and basket signage, local area and in-store promotion, and shelf tags highlighting the healthiest packaged foods. A sequential mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken. Customer exit surveys investigated demographics, and intervention recall and perceptions. Logistic mixed-models estimated associations between customer responses and demographics, with store as random effect. Supermarket staff surveys investigated staff demographics, interactions with customers, and intervention component feedback. Semi-structured stakeholder interviews with local government, retail and academic partners explored intervention perceptions, and factors which enabled or inhibited implementation, maintenance and scalability. Interviews were inductively coded to identify key themes. RESULTS: Of 500 customers surveyed, 33%[95%CI:23,44] recalled the Eat Well @ IGA brand and 97%[95%CI:93,99] agreed that IGA should continue its efforts to encourage healthy eating. The 82 staff surveyed demonstrated very favourable intervention perceptions. Themes from 19 interviews included that business models favour sales of unhealthy foods, and that stakeholder collaboration was crucial to intervention design and implementation. Staff surveys and interviews highlighted the need to minimise staff time for project maintenance and to regularly refresh intervention materials to increase and maintain salience among customers. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation found that interventions to promote healthy diets in supermarkets can be perceived as beneficial by retailers, customers, and government partners provided that barriers including staff time and intervention salience are addressed. Collaborative partnerships in intervention design and implementation, including retailers, governments, and academics, show potential for encouraging long-term sustainability of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN37395231 Registered 4 May 2017.

Availability and placement of healthy and discretionary food in Australian supermarkets by chain and level of socio-economic disadvantage.

OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to investigate availability and placement of healthy and discretionary (less healthy) food in supermarkets in Victoria, Australia, and examine variation by supermarket chain and area-level socio-economic disadvantage. DESIGN: Cross-sectional supermarket audit. Measures included: (i) proportion of shelf space (in square metres) allocated to selected healthy and discretionary food and beverages; (ii) proportion of end-of-aisle, checkout and island bin displays containing discretionary food and beverages and (iii) proportion of space within end-of-aisle, checkout and island bin displays devoted to discretionary food and beverages. SETTING: Metropolitan areas of Melbourne and Geelong, Australia. Assessment: June-July 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 104 stores, with equal numbers from each supermarket group (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and Independent stores) within strata of area-level socio-economic position. RESULTS: Proportion of shelf space devoted to selected discretionary foods was greater for Independent stores (72·7 %) compared with Woolworths (65·7 %), Coles (64·8 %) and Aldi (63·2 %) (all P < 0·001). Proportion of shelf space devoted to selected discretionary food for all Coles, Woolworths and Aldi stores was 9·7 % higher in the most compared with the least disadvantaged areas (P = 0·002). Across all stores, 90 % of staff-assisted checkout displays and 50 % of end-of-aisle displays included discretionary food. Aldi was less likely to feature discretionary food in end-of-aisle and checkout displays compared with other supermarket groups. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive marketing of discretionary food in all Australian supermarket chains was observed, which is likely to strongly influence purchasing patterns and population diets. Findings should be used to inform private and public sector policies to reduce marketing of discretionary food in supermarkets.

The Healthiness of Food and Beverages on Price Promotion at Promotional Displays: A Cross-Sectional Audit of Australian Supermarkets.

Supermarket environments can strongly influence purchasing decisions. Price promotions are recognised as a particularly persuasive tactic, but the healthiness of price promotions in prominent in-store locations is understudied. This study compared the prevalence and magnitude of price promotions on healthy and unhealthy food and beverages (foods) displayed at prominent in-store locations within Australian supermarkets, including analyses by supermarket group and area-level socio-economic position. A cross-sectional in-store audit of price promotions on foods at key display areas was undertaken in 104 randomly selected stores from major Australian supermarket groups (Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and independents) in Victoria, Australia. Of the display space dedicated to foods with price promotions, three of the four supermarket groups had a greater proportion of display space devoted to unhealthy (compared to healthy) foods at each promotional location measured (end of aisles: 66%; island bins: 53%; checkouts: 88%). Aldi offered very few price promotions. Few measures varied by area-level socio-economic position. This study demonstrated that price promotions at prominent in-store locations in Australian supermarkets favoured unhealthy foods. Marketing of this nature is likely to encourage the purchase of unhealthy foods, highlighting the need for retailers and policy-makers to consider addressing in-store pricing and placement strategies to encourage healthier food environments.

Price Promotions by Food Category and Product Healthiness in an Australian Supermarket Chain, 2017-2018.

Objectives. To examine the prevalence and magnitude of price promotions in a major Australian supermarket and how they differ between core (healthy) and discretionary (less healthy) food categories.Methods. Weekly online price data (regular retail price, discount price, and promotion type) on 1579 foods were collected for 1 year (April 2017 to April 2018) from the largest Australian supermarket chain. Products audited were classified according to Australian Dietary Guidelines definitions of core and discretionary foods and according to their Health Star Rating (a government-endorsed nutrient profiling scheme).Results. On average, 15.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 14.7%, 15.3%) of core foods and 28.8% (95% CI = 28.6%, 29.0%) of discretionary foods were price promoted during a given week. Average discounts were -15.4% (95% CI = -16.4, -14.4) for core products and -25.9% (95% CI = -26.8, -25.1) for discretionary products. The percentage of products on price promotion and the size of the discount were larger for products with a lower Health Star Rating (P < .05).Conclusions. Price promotions were more prevalent and greater in magnitude for discretionary foods than for core foods. Policies to reduce the prevalence and magnitude of price promotions on discretionary foods could improve the healthiness of food purchased from supermarkets.

The price of healthy and unhealthy foods in Australian primary school canteens.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the price of Australian school canteen foods according to their nutritional value. METHODS: Primary school canteen menus were collected as part of a policy compliance randomised trial. For each menu item, dietitians classified its nutritional value; 'green' ('good sources of nutrients'), 'amber' ('some nutritional value'), 'red' ('lack adequate nutritional value') and assigned a food category (e.g. 'Drinks', 'Snacks'). Pricing information was extracted. Within each food category, ANOVAs assessed differences between the mean price of 'green', 'amber' and 'red' items, and post-hoc tests were conducted. RESULTS: Seventy of the 124 invited schools participated. There were significant differences in the mean price of 'green', 'amber' and 'red foods' across categories, with 'green' items more expensive than 'amber' items in main-meal categories ('Sandwiches' +$0.43, 'Hot Foods' +$0.71), and the reverse true for non-meal categories ('Drinks' -$0.13, 'Snacks' -$0.18, 'Frozen Snacks' -$0.25^). CONCLUSION: Current pricing may not encourage the purchasing of healthy main-meal items by and for students. Further investigation of pricing strategies that enhance the public health benefit of existing school canteen policies and practices are warranted. Implications for Public Health: Providing support to canteen managers regarding healthy canteen policies may have a positive impact on public health nutrition.

A theory-based evaluation of a dissemination intervention to improve childcare cooks' intentions to implement nutritional guidelines on their menus.

BACKGROUND: Childcare services represent a key setting to implement nutritional interventions to support the development of healthy eating behaviours in young children. Childcare-specific nutritional guidelines outlining recommendations for provision of food in care have been developed. Despite this, research suggests that few childcare services currently implement these guidelines. This study aimed to examine the impact of providing printed educational materials on childcare service cooks' intentions to use nutritional guidelines and provide fruit and vegetables on their menu. FINDINGS: A randomised controlled trial was conducted with 77 childcare services (38 control and 39 intervention). Intervention service cooks were mailed a two-page educational material together with a menu planning checklist. Intervention development and evaluation was guided by the theory of planned behaviour. Outcome data assessing intentions to use nutritional guidelines and serves of fruit and vegetables provided on menus (primary outcomes) as well as secondary outcomes (attitudes, behavioural regulation and social norms) were collected via a telephone interview with cooks. Relative to the comparison group, cooks in the intervention arm had significantly higher intentions to use the guidelines (p value 0.0005), accompanied by significant changes in perceived behavioural control (p value 0.0008) and attitudes (p value 0.0071). No significant difference in serves of fruit (p value 0.7278) and vegetables (p value 0.0573) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of educational materials can improve childcare service cooks' intentions to use nutritional guidelines; however, as a standalone strategy, it may not improve provision of food on menus.

Effectiveness of an intervention to facilitate the implementation of healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices in childcare services: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to increase the implementation of healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices by centre-based childcare services. The study also sought to determine if the intervention was effective in improving child dietary intake and increasing child physical activity levels while attending childcare. METHODS: A parallel group, randomised controlled trial was conducted in a sample of 128 childcare services. Intervention strategies included provision of implementation support staff, securing executive support, staff training, consensus processes, academic detailing visits, tools and resources, performance monitoring and feedback and a communications strategy. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of services implementing all seven healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices targeted by the intervention. Outcome data were collected via telephone surveys with nominated supervisors and room leaders at baseline and immediately post-intervention. Secondary trial outcomes included the differences between groups in the number of serves consumed by children for each food group within the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating and in the proportion of children engaged in sedentary, walking or very active physical activity assessed via observation in a random subsample of 36 services at follow-up. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups for the primary trial outcome (p = 0.44). Relative to the control group, a significantly larger proportion of intervention group services reported having a written nutrition and physical activity policy (p = 0.05) and providing adult-guided activities to develop fundamental movement skills (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups at follow-up on measures of child dietary intake or physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the trial were equivocal. While there was no significant difference between groups for the primary trial outcome, the intervention did significantly increase the proportion of intervention group services implementing two of the seven healthy eating and physical activity policies and practices. High levels of implementation of a number of policies and practices at baseline, significant obesity prevention activity in the study region and higher than previously reported intra-class correlation of child behaviours may, in part, explain the trial findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian Clinical Trials Registry (reference ACTRN12612000927820 ).