ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024
Developing the DIGIFOOD Dashboard to Monitor the Digitalization of Local Food Environments: Interdisciplinary Approach.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital chameleons of the food environment: an exploratory analysis of the shapeshifting nature of dark kitchens in Australia and their regulatory challenges.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Prioritising Indicators for Large-scale Monitoring and Assessment of Food Environments for Public Health.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- The emergence of meal delivery applications: a research agenda to advance the next decade of progress in nutrition.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Review
- Assessing socioeconomic disparities in emerging hybrid food environments: a cross-sectional analysis of the DIGIFOOD dashboard.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- The Digital Revolution in the Bakery Sector: Innovations, Challenges, and Opportunities from Industry 4.0.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline food delivery services (OFDS) enable individuals to conveniently access foods from any deliverable location. The increased accessibility to foods may have implications on the consumption of healthful or unhealthful foods. Concerningly, previous research suggests that OFDS offer an abundance of energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods, which are heavily promoted through deals or discounts.
objectiveIn this paper, we describe the development of the DIGIFOOD dashboard to monitor the digitalization of local food environments in New South Wales, Australia, resulting from the proliferation of OFDS.
methodsTogether with a team of data scientists, we designed a purpose-built dashboard using Microsoft Power BI. The development process involved three main stages: (1) data acquisition of food outlets via web scraping, (2) data cleaning and processing, and (3) visualization of food outlets on the dashboard. We also describe the categorization process of food outlets to characterize the healthfulness of local, online, and hybrid food environments. These categories included takeaway franchises, independent takeaways, independent restaurants and cafes, supermarkets or groceries, bakeries, alcohol retailers, convenience stores, and sandwich or salad shops.
resultsTo date, the DIGIFOOD dashboard has mapped 36,967 unique local food outlets (locally accessible and scraped from Google Maps) and 16,158 unique online food outlets (accessible online and scraped from Uber Eats) across New South Wales, Australia. In 2023, the market-leading OFDS operated in 1061 unique suburbs or localities in New South Wales. The Sydney-Parramatta region, a major urban area in New South Wales accounting for 28 postcodes, recorded the highest number of online food outlets (n=4221). In contrast, the Far West and Orana region, a rural area in New South Wales with only 2 postcodes, recorded the lowest number of food outlets accessible online (n=7). Urban areas appeared to have the greatest increase in total food outlets accessible via online food delivery. In both local and online food environments, it was evident that independent restaurants and cafes comprised the largest proportion of food outlets at 47.2% (17,437/36,967) and 51.8% (8369/16,158), respectively. However, compared to local food environments, the online food environment has relatively more takeaway franchises (2734/16,158, 16.9% compared to 3273/36,967, 8.9%) and independent takeaway outlets (2416/16,158, 14.9% compared to 4026/36,967, 10.9%).
conclusionsThe DIGIFOOD dashboard leverages the current rich data landscape to display and contrast the availability and healthfulness of food outlets that are locally accessible versus accessible online. The DIGIFOOD dashboard can be a useful monitoring tool for the evolving digital food environment at a regional scale and has the potential to be scaled up at a national level. Future iterations of the dashboard, including data from additional prominent OFDS, can be used by policy makers to identify high-priority areas with limited access to healthful foods both online and locally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.