Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2021
Cost and accessibility of empiric food elimination diets for treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sheedy Katherine, Patel Nishaat, Porter Judi, Silva Hannah
Аннотация
AIM: This study aimed to investigate and compare the cost, affordability, and accessibility of three elimination diet approaches for the treatment of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis: the two-, four- and six-food elimination diets and with comparison to a standard diet.
METHODS: An evidence-based modelling process was undertaken for costing and accessibility, including the development of three hypothetical reference families; four food baskets were modified from an established benchmark for each diet. Baskets were costed across eastern Melbourne, Australia. Affordability was modelled using two incomes: the equivalised disposable household income and welfare payments for reference families. Affordability was defined as <30% of the median weekly household income and food stress defined as >25% of a median weekly household income.
RESULTS: All elimination diets were significantly more expensive than a standard diet and may be unaffordable for those receiving welfare. Prices significantly increased as the number of food allergens eliminated increased. Most items for a two-food elimination diet were available at major supermarkets; however, items for nutritionally complete four- and six-food elimination diets required a visit to a second store.
CONCLUSION: A step-up approach, commencing with a two-food elimination diet, instead of starting with a six-food elimination diet, may alleviate affordability barriers for most family types, which may enhance compliance. Clinicians should consider family type, financial situation, as well as accessibility of allergen-free foods in the patient's residential area when deciding on the most appropriate dietary or therapeutic treatment approach for eosinophilic oesophagitis.
METHODS: An evidence-based modelling process was undertaken for costing and accessibility, including the development of three hypothetical reference families; four food baskets were modified from an established benchmark for each diet. Baskets were costed across eastern Melbourne, Australia. Affordability was modelled using two incomes: the equivalised disposable household income and welfare payments for reference families. Affordability was defined as <30% of the median weekly household income and food stress defined as >25% of a median weekly household income.
RESULTS: All elimination diets were significantly more expensive than a standard diet and may be unaffordable for those receiving welfare. Prices significantly increased as the number of food allergens eliminated increased. Most items for a two-food elimination diet were available at major supermarkets; however, items for nutritionally complete four- and six-food elimination diets required a visit to a second store.
CONCLUSION: A step-up approach, commencing with a two-food elimination diet, instead of starting with a six-food elimination diet, may alleviate affordability barriers for most family types, which may enhance compliance. Clinicians should consider family type, financial situation, as well as accessibility of allergen-free foods in the patient's residential area when deciding on the most appropriate dietary or therapeutic treatment approach for eosinophilic oesophagitis.