ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2026
Food Environment Assessment in Two Socioeconomic Contexts in Queensland, Australia.
Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Food Environment Assessment in Two Socioeconomic Contexts in Queensland, Australia.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the availability and affordability of healthy food options in restaurants and supermarkets across two communities with different socioeconomic contexts.
methodsThe cross-sectional comparative study was conducted in Inala, a low socioeconomic status (SES) suburb and Springfield, a nearby, internationally recognised master-planned community in Queensland, Australia. A total of 60 restaurants and five supermarkets were assessed using the Nutrition Environment Measurement Survey (NEMS). Data were collected between July and September 2024 and compared using Fisher's exact test.
resultsPronounced difference in food environment was observed between restaurants but not between supermarkets across the two study locations. No significant differences were observed in the availability (1.95 vs. 2.18, p > 0.05) or quality (mean score of 3 for both, p > 0.05) of healthy food items between the two suburb supermarkets and healthier food options were also more expensive than less healthy alternatives in both locations. In contrast, restaurants in Inala offered significantly fewer supports for healthy eating compared with Springfield restaurants (NEMS-R mean sub score = 0.93 vs. 2.45, p = 0.002). Additionally, individual restaurant meals were not cheaper than combo meals in either suburb.
conclusionRestaurant food environment in Inala was found less supportive of healthy eating compared with Springfield. Therefore, future initiatives in Inala should prioritise equitable access to and availability of nutritious food with a particular focus on restaurants. RELEVANCE TO HEALTH PROMOTION: The study offered insights into the healthy eating environment in two Australian suburban communities. Findings deepen the understanding of environmental determinants of healthy eating and carry the scope to inform the co-design of future place-based and sustainable healthy eating initiatives.
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.