BACKGROUND: During consultations on weight management in childhood obesity clinics, the additional costs incurred by healthy eating are often cited, as an economic barrier to achieving a better nutritional balance. AIM: To examine whether adopting an improved theoretical, balanced diet compared to current dietary habits in children incurs additional cost. DESIGN AND SETTING:Children aged 5-16 years (body mass index [BMI] ≥98th percentile) recruited to a randomised trial comparing a hospital-based and primary care childhood obesity clinics provided data for this study. METHOD: Three-day dietary diaries collected at baseline were analysed for energy and fat intake and then compared to a theoretical, adjusted healthy-eating diet based on the Food Standards Agency, 'Eatwell plate'. Both were priced contemporaneously using the appropriate portion size, at a neighbourhood, mid-range supermarket, at a budget supermarket, and on the local high street. RESULTS: The existing diet purchased at a budget supermarket was cheapest (£2.48/day). The healthier, alternative menu at the same shop cost an additional 33 pence/day (£2.81). The same exercise in a mid-range supermarket, incurred an additional cost of 4 pence per day (£3.40 versus £3.44). Switching from an unhealthy mid-range supermarket menu to the healthier, budget-outlet alternative saved 59 pence per day. The healthier, alternative menu was cheaper than the existing diet if purchased on the high street (£3.58 versus £3.75), although for both menus this was most expensive. CONCLUSION: For many obese children, eating healthily would not necessarily incur prohibitive, additional financial cost, although a poor diet at a budget supermarket remains the cheapest of all options. Cost is a possible barrier to healthy eating for the most economically disadvantaged.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: During consultations on weight management in childhood obesity clinics, the additional costs incurred by healthy eating are often cited, as an economic barrier to achieving a better nutritional balance. AIM: To examine whether adopting an improved theoretical, balanced diet compared to current dietary habits in children incurs additional cost. DESIGN AND SETTING:Children aged 5-16 years (body mass index [BMI] ≥98th percentile) recruited to a randomised trial comparing a hospital-based and primary care childhood obesity clinics provided data for this study. METHOD: Three-day dietary diaries collected at baseline were analysed for energy and fat intake and then compared to a theoretical, adjusted healthy-eating diet based on the Food Standards Agency, 'Eatwell plate'. Both were priced contemporaneously using the appropriate portion size, at a neighbourhood, mid-range supermarket, at a budget supermarket, and on the local high street. RESULTS: The existing diet purchased at a budget supermarket was cheapest (£2.48/day). The healthier, alternative menu at the same shop cost an additional 33 pence/day (£2.81). The same exercise in a mid-range supermarket, incurred an additional cost of 4 pence per day (£3.40 versus £3.44). Switching from an unhealthy mid-range supermarket menu to the healthier, budget-outlet alternative saved 59 pence per day. The healthier, alternative menu was cheaper than the existing diet if purchased on the high street (£3.58 versus £3.75), although for both menus this was most expensive. CONCLUSION: For many obesechildren, eating healthily would not necessarily incur prohibitive, additional financial cost, although a poor diet at a budget supermarket remains the cheapest of all options. Cost is a possible barrier to healthy eating for the most economically disadvantaged.
Authors: Wilma E Waterlander; Anika de Mul; Albertine J Schuit; Jacob C Seidell; Ingrid Hm Steenhuis Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Matthew A Sabin; Anna Ford; Linda Hunt; Riyaz Jamal; Elizabeth C Crowne; Julian P H Shield Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Tonja R Nansel; Leah M Lipsky; Miriam H Eisenberg; Aiyi Liu; Sanjeev N Mehta; Lori M B Laffel Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Kristin A Evans; Patricia A Stewart; Steven R Cook; Christopher L Seplaki; David Q Rich; Isabel Diana Fernandez Journal: J Hunger Environ Nutr Date: 2018-01-02
Authors: Lisa Arai; Monica Panca; Steve Morris; Katherine Curtis-Tyler; Patricia J Lucas; Helen M Roberts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Emma Mead; Tamara Brown; Karen Rees; Liane B Azevedo; Victoria Whittaker; Dan Jones; Joan Olajide; Giulia M Mainardi; Eva Corpeleijn; Claire O'Malley; Elizabeth Beardsmore; Lena Al-Khudairy; Louise Baur; Maria-Inti Metzendorf; Alessandro Demaio; Louisa J Ells Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-06-22
Authors: Maite M Aldaya; Francisco C Ibañez; Paula Domínguez-Lacueva; María Teresa Murillo-Arbizu; Mar Rubio-Varas; Beatriz Soret; María José Beriain Journal: Foods Date: 2021-05-02
Authors: May A Beydoun; Marie T Fanelli-Kuczmarski; Allyssa Allen; Hind A Beydoun; Barry M Popkin; Michele K Evans; Alan B Zonderman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240