Search

Issue Addressed: Affordability of a healthy diet is a determinant of nutritional intake and therefore health. This project aimed to measure the cost of healthy foods across a geographically defined region and examine factors related to changing food prices to assist in informing health promotion practice.Methods: The cost of a healthy food basket was measured using the Victorian Healthy Food Basket tool, in all eligible stores, across five rural local government areas in Western Victoria, Australia in 2014, 2015 and 2016. One-way analysis of variance was used to investigate differences in healthy food basket cost across years. Multivariable linear regression models were constructed to adjust for baseline (2014) cost to determine factors associated with cost.Results: Data were collected from 45 stores in 2014 and 2015 and 48 stores in 2016. The average cost of the healthy food basket was $459 in 2014, $437 in 2015 and $443 in 2016. The cost of the healthy food basket was the highest in stores >15 km from the major regional centre and in areas with only one supermarket (non-cluster) (P < 0.05). All food groups except fruit and vegetables decreased in price between 2014 and 2016.Conclusion: This project highlights distance from regional centres and competition as possible factors that influence the cost of healthy food. SO WHAT?: This is valuable insight for health promoters in designing both local level interventions aimed at improving access to healthy food and influencing regional food systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a large number of clinical trials launched at unprecedented speed. We aimed to explore the landscape of COVID-19 trials in Australia, and to what extent Australian researchers have responded to global need for coordination and collaboration. Methods We systematically searched the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1st January to 16th November 2020. We included all interventional studies addressing prevention, diagnosis or treatment of COVID-19, recruiting in Australia. We analysed the number and size of trials, additional recruitment countries, funding, trial purpose, study design, data sharing plans, and collection of COVID-19 core outcomes. Results We identified 56 COVID-19 trials, targeting 33,757 participants. They evaluated drugs (n = 34, 61%), vaccines (n = 10, 18%) or other interventions (n = 12, 21%), e.g. ventilators, digital health. Median target sample size was 150 (Q1-Q3=33-395). Only two trials utilised adaptive methods (Bayesian designs), and of the 34 COVID-19 treatment trials, only one included all core outcomes. Most (80%) indicated they were not planning to share data. Conclusions There has been impressive research scale-up and innovation in drug development and digital health, but fast-track procedures may have impacted scientific rigor and research prioritisation. Trials often lacked innovative study designs, were underpowered for clinical outcomes, collected limited core outcomes and did not intend to share data, precluding future evidence synthesis. Key messages The research response in Australia has been rapid, but better coordination is required. Infrastructure for innovation would support coordination of research efforts, and reduce research waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]