ArticlePublic health nutrition2026
Healthy or misleading? A study of food outlets categorised as 'healthy' on an Australian delivery platform.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOnline food delivery (OFD) platforms increasingly shape food environments and dietary choices, yet it remains unclear whether platform-defined 'healthy' outlet categories align with evidence-informed assessments. This study assessed the healthiness of food outlets labelled as 'healthy' on a leading OFD platform in Victoria, Australia, using food environment classification tools.
designCross-sectional study using web-scraped outlet-level data. Outlets labelled 'healthy' were assigned to one of thirty-six predefined outlet types and classified using the DIGIASSESS index, an expert-informed food environment scoring tool. A supplementary menu-based sensitivity analysis was conducted in a stratified random 10 % subsample of outlets.
settingA leading OFD platform in Victoria, Australia.
participantsWe identified 12 938 unique food outlets, of which 1408 (9·2 %) were labelled 'healthy' by the platform and included in the primary analysis. A stratified random subsample of 166 outlets underwent menu-level review.
results'Healthy'-labelled outlets were most commonly Independent-Takeaway (11·8 %), Independent-Cereal-Based Café Meals (9·7 %) and Service Station Convenience Stores (7·4 %). Using DIGIASSESS, most 'healthy'-labelled outlets were reclassified as 'less healthy' (
conclusionsOn this leading Australian OFD platform, the 'healthy' outlet category did not align with expert-informed assessments of outlet-type healthiness. Such misalignment risks misleading consumers and highlights the need for transparent, standardised criteria governing health-related outlet categories in digital food environments.
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.