The sequential use of alternative treatments for chronic conditions represents a complex, dynamic intervention pathway; previous treatment and patient characteristics affect both choice and effectiveness of subsequent treatments. Evidence synthesis methods that produce the least biased estimates of treatment-sequencing effects are required to inform reliable clinical and policy decision-making. A comprehensive review was conducted to establish what existing methods are available, outline the assumptions they make, and identify their shortcomings.

The review encompassed both meta-analytic techniques and decision-analytic modelling, any disease condition, and any type of treatment sequence, but not diagnostic tests, screening, or treatment monitoring. It focused on the estimation of clinical effectiveness and did not consider the impact of treatment sequencing on the estimation of costs or utility values.

The review included ninety-one studies. Treatment-sequencing is usually dealt with at the decision-modelling stage and is rarely addressed using evidence synthesis methodology for clinical effectiveness. Most meta-analyses are of discrete treatments, sometimes stratified by line of therapy. Prospective sequencing trials are scarce. In their absence, there is no single best way to evaluate treatment sequences, rather there is a range of approaches, each of which has advantages and disadvantages and is influenced by the evidence available and the decision problem. Due to the scarcity of data on sequential treatments, modelling studies generally apply simplifying assumptions to data on discrete treatments. A taxonomy for all possible assumptions was developed, providing a unique resource to aid the critique of decision-analytic models.

The evolution of network meta-analysis in HTA demonstrates that clinical and policy decision-making should account for the multiple treatments available for many chronic conditions. However, treatment-sequencing has yet to be accounted for within clinical evaluations. Economic modelling is often based on the simplifying assumption of treatment independence. This can lead to misrepresentation of the true level of uncertainty, potential bias in estimating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of treatments and, eventually, the wrong decision.

To determine whether there were changes in the prevalence or healthiness of products carrying claims post-implementation of Standard 1.2.7: Nutrition, Health and Related Claims in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.

Observational survey of claims on food packages in three categories: non-alcoholic beverages, breakfast cereals and cereal bars. Nutrient profiling was applied to products to determine their eligibility to carry health claims under Standard 1.2.7. The Standard came into effect in 2013. The proportion of products carrying claims and the proportion of those not meeting the nutrient profiling criteria were calculated. A comparative analysis was conducted to determine changes between 2011 and 2016.

Three large metropolitan stores from the three major supermarket chains in Sydney, Australia were surveyed in 2011 and 2016.

All claims on all available products in 2016 (n 1737). Nutrition composition and ingredients were collected from the packaging.

Overall in 2016, 76 % of products carried claims and there were 7367 claims identified in the three food categories. Of products in 2016 with health claims, 34 % did not meet nutrient profiling criteria. These may breach Standard 1.2.7. Comparison of 2011–2016 showed a significant increase in the number of products carrying claims (66 v. 76 %, P < 0·001).

The proportion of products carrying claims that do not meet nutrient profiling and consumers’ tendency to infer health benefits from nutrition content claims warrants the regulation of all claims using the nutrient profiling. This will ensure consumers are not misled by claims on unhealthy food products.

A quarter of Australian children are overweight or obese. Research conducted in 2010 found that fast-food children’s meals were energy-dense and nutrient-poor. Since then, menu labelling and self-regulation of marketing have been introduced in Australia. The present study aimed to: (i) investigate the nutrient composition of children’s meals offered at fast-food chains; (ii) compare these with children’s daily requirements and recommendations and the food industry’s own criteria for healthier children’s meals; and (iii) determine whether results have changed since last investigated in 2010.

An audit of nutrition information for fast-food children’s meals was conducted. Meals were compared with 30 % (recommended contribution for a meal) and 100 % of children’s daily recommendations and requirements. A comparative analysis was conducted to determine if the proportion of meals that exceeded meal requirements and recommendations, and compliance with the food industry’s own criteria, changed between 2010 and 2016.

Large Australian fast-food chains.

All possible children’s meal combinations.

Overall, 289 children’s meals were included. Most exceeded 30 % of daily recommendations and requirements for a 4-year-old’s energy, saturated fat, sugars and Na. Results were also substantial for 8- and 13-year-olds, particularly for Na. When compared with mean energy and nutrient contents from 2010, there were minimal changes overall.

Children’s meals can provide excess energy, saturated fat, sugar and Na to children’s diets. Systematic reformulation of energy, saturated fat, sugars and Na would improve the nutrient composition of the meals.

The Food Standards Code regulates health claims on Australian food labels. General-level health claims highlight food–health relationships, e.g. ‘contains calcium for strong bones’. Food companies making claims must notify Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and certify that a systematic literature review (SLR) substantiating the food–health relationship has been conducted. There is no pre- or post-notification assessment of the SLR, potentially enabling the food industry to make claims based on poor-quality research. The present study assessed the rigour of self-substantiation.

Food–health relationships notified to FSANZ were monitored monthly between 2013 and 2017. These relationships were assessed by scoping published literature. Where evidence was equivocal/insufficient, the relevant government food regulatory agency was asked to investigate. If not investigated, or the response was unsatisfactory, the project team conducted an independent SLR which was provided to the government agency.

Australia.

Self-substantiated food–health relationships.

There were sixty-seven relationships notified by thirty-eight food companies. Of these, thirty-three relationships (52 %) from twenty companies were deemed to have sufficient published evidence. Four were excluded as they originated in New Zealand. Three relationships were removed before investigations were initiated. The project initiated twenty-seven food–health relationship investigations. Another six relationships were withdrawn, and three relationships were awaiting government assessment.

To ensure that SLR underpinning food–health relationships are rigorous and reduce regulatory enforcement burden, pre-market approval of food–health relationships should be introduced. This will increase consumer and public health confidence in the regulatory process and prevent potentially misleading general-level health claims on food labels.

The present study examined the energy (kilojoule) content of Australian fast-food menu items over seven years, before and after introduction of menu board labelling, to determine the impact of the introduction of the legislation.

Analysis of the median energy contents per serving and per 100g of fast-food menu items. Change in energy content of menu items across the years surveyed and differences in energy content of standard and limited-time only menu items were analysed.

Five of Australia’s largest fast food chains: Hungry Jack’s, KFC, McDonald’s, Oporto and Red Rooster.

All standard and limited-time only menu items available at each fast-food chain, collected annually for seven years, 2009–2015.

Although some fast-food chains/menu item categories had significant increases in the energy contents of their menus at some time points during the 7-year period, overall there were no significant or systematic decreases in energy following the introduction of menu labelling (P=0·19 by +17 kJ/100 g, P=0·83 by +8 kJ/serving). Limited-time only items were significantly higher in median energy content per 100 g than standard menu items (+74 kJ/100 g, P=0·002).

While reformulation across the entire Australian fast-food supply has the potential to positively influence population nutrient intake, the introduction of menu labelling legislation in New South Wales, Australia did not lead to reduced energy contents across the five fast-food chains. To encourage widespread reformulation by the fast-food industry and enhance the impact of labelling legislation, the government should work with industry to set targets for reformulation of nutrient content.

To determine the extent that Australian fast-food websites contain nutrition content and health claims, and whether these claims are compliant with the new provisions of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (‘the Code’).

Systematic content analysis of all web pages to identify nutrition content and health claims. Nutrition information panels were used to determine whether products with claims met Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criteria (NPSC) and qualifying criteria, and to compare them with the Code to determine compliance.

Australian websites of forty-four fast-food chains including meals, bakery, ice cream, beverage and salad chains.

Any products marketed on the websites using health or nutrition content claims.

Of the forty-four fast-food websites, twenty (45 %) had at least one claim. A total of 2094 claims were identified on 371 products, including 1515 nutrition content (72 %) and 579 health claims (28 %). Five fast-food products with health (5 %) and 157 products with nutrition content claims (43 %) did not meet the requirements of the Code to allow them to carry such claims.

New provisions in the Code came into effect in January 2016 after a 3-year transition. Food regulatory agencies should review fast-food websites to ensure compliance with the qualifying criteria for nutrition content and health claim regulations. This would prevent consumers from viewing unhealthy foods as healthier choices. Healthy choices could be facilitated by applying NPSC to nutrition content claims. Fast-food chains should be educated on the requirements of the Code regarding claims.

To determine whether the ratings from the Australian front-of-pack labelling scheme, Health Star Rating (HSR), and the ability to carry health claims using the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) for core dairy products promote foods consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines.

The Australian nutrient profiling model used for assessing eligibility for health claims was compared with the nutrient profiling model underpinning the HSR system to determine their agreement when assessing dairy products. Agreement between the extent to which products met nutrient profiling criteria and scored three stars or over using the HSR calculator was determined using Cohen’s kappa tests.

The four largest supermarket chains in Sydney, Australia.

All available products in the milk, hard cheese, soft cheese and yoghurt categories (n 1363) were surveyed in March–May 2014. Nutrition composition and ingredients lists were recorded for each product.

There was ‘good’ agreement between NPSC and HSR overall (κ=0·78; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·81; P<0·001), for hard cheeses (κ=0·72; 95 % CI 0·65, 0·79; P<0·001) and yoghurt (κ=0·79; 95 % CI 0·73, 0·86; P<0·001). There was ‘fair’ agreement for milk (κ=0·33; 95 % CI 0·20, 0·45; P<0·001) and ‘very good’ agreement for soft cheese (κ=0·84; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·92; P<0·001). Generally, products tended to have HSR consistent with other products of a similar type within their categories.

For dairy products, the HSR scheme largely aligned with the NPSC used for determining eligibility for health claims. Both systems appeared be consistent with the Australian Dietary Guidelines for dairy products, with lower-fat products rating higher.

Fruit and vegetable claims on food packages are not regulated under Australian food standards. The present study aimed to: (i) investigate the number and healthiness of products carrying fruit and vegetable claims in Australia; and (ii) compare the nutrition composition of these products with fresh fruit and/or vegetables.

Content analysis of fruit and vegetable claims on food packages. The Australian food standards nutrient profiling model was used to determine the proportion of products not meeting nutrient profiling criteria. The nutrient composition of products carrying claims referencing the servings of fruit and vegetables in the product were compared with that of the dominant fruit and/or vegetables in each product.

The five largest supermarket chains in Australia.

All available products in the fruit snacks, soups and fruit and vegetable juices/fruit drinks categories (n 762) were surveyed. Nutrition composition, ingredients and claims were recorded for each product.

Of the products surveyed, 48 % (n 366) carried at least one claim, of which 34 % (n 124) did not meet nutrient profiling. Products carrying claims referencing the number of servings of fruit and vegetables had more energy, sodium, saturated fat and sugar, and less fibre, than fresh fruit and/or vegetables (all P<0·001).

Many products carried fruit and vegetable claims and were significantly higher in energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium than fresh fruit and vegetables. Marketing these products as a way of meeting fruit and vegetable intake is inaccurate and potentially misleading. Fruit and vegetable claims should be regulated using nutrient profiling.

To determine if localised programmes that are successful in engaging the community can add value to larger fruit and vegetable mass-media campaigns by evaluating the results of the Eat It To Beat It programme.

The Eat It To Beat It programme is a multi-strategy intervention that uses community-based education and ‘below the line’ social marketing to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in parents. This programme was evaluated by a controlled before-and-after study with repeat cross-sectional data collected via computer-assisted telephone interviews with 1403 parents before the intervention (2008) and 1401 following intervention delivery (2011).

The intervention area was the Hunter region and the control area was the New England region of New South Wales, Australia.

Parents of primary school-aged children (Kindergarten to Year 6).

The programme achieved improvements in knowledge of recommended intakes for fruit and vegetables and some positive changes in knowledge of serving size for vegetables. Exposure to the programme resulted in a net increase of 0·5 servings of fruit and vegetables daily for those who recalled the programme compared with those who did not (P = 0·004). Increased intake of fruit and vegetables was significantly associated with increasing exposure to programme strategies.

The Eat It To Beat It programme demonstrates that an increase in consumption of fruit and vegetables can be achieved by programmes that build on the successes of larger mass-media and social-marketing campaigns. This suggests that funding for localised, community-based programmes should be increased.

Proposed Australian regulation of claims on food labels includes requirements for products carrying a health claim to meet nutrient profiling criteria. This would not apply to nutrition content claims. The present study investigated the number and healthiness of products carrying claims and the impact of the proposed regulation.

Observational survey of claims on food packages across three categories: non-alcoholic beverages, breakfast cereals and cereal bars. Nutrient profiling was applied to products carrying claims to determine their eligibility to carry health claims under the proposed regulation.

Three large metropolitan stores from the three major supermarket chains in Sydney, Australia were surveyed in August 2011.

All claims on 1028 products were recorded. Nutrition composition and ingredients were collected from the packaging, enabling nutrient profiling. The proportion of products in each category carrying claims and the proportion of these that did not meet the nutrient profiling criteria were calculated.

Two-thirds of products in the three categories (ranging from 18 to 78 %) carried at least one claim. Of those carrying health claims, 31 % did not meet the nutrient profiling criteria. These would be ineligible to carry these claims under the proposed regulation. Additionally, 29 % of products carrying nutrition content claims did not meet the nutrient profiling criteria.

The number of products carrying nutrition content claims that did not meet the nutrient profiling criteria suggests that comprehensive regulation is warranted. Promotion of unhealthy foods using claims is potentially misleading for consumers and hinders their ability to select healthier foods. Implementation of the proposed regulation represents an improvement to current practice.

To investigate nutrition literacy among adult grocery buyers regarding energy-related labelling terms on food packaging.

Qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to determine shoppers’ understanding of energy terms (‘energy’, ‘calories’ and ‘kilojoules’) and how energy terms affect perceptions of healthiness and intentions to purchase breakfast cereals, muesli bars and frozen meals.

Individual in-depth interviews and surveys in two metropolitan supermarkets, Sydney, Australia.

Australian adults (interview n 40, survey n 405) aged 18–79 years.

The relationship between energy and perceived healthiness of food varied by product type: higher energy breakfast cereals were perceived to be healthier, while lower energy frozen meals were seen as healthier choices. Likewise, intentions to purchase the higher energy product varied according to product type. The primary reason stated for purchasing higher energy products was for sustained energy. Participants from households of lower socio-economic status were significantly more likely to perceive higher energy products as healthier. From the qualitative interviews, participants expressed uncertainty about their understanding of kilojoules, while only 40 % of participants in intercept surveys correctly answered that kilojoules and calories measured the same thing.

Australian consumers have a poor understanding of energy and kilojoules and tend to perceive higher energy products as healthier and providing sustained energy. This has implications regarding the usefulness of industry front-of-pack labelling initiatives and quick service restaurant menu labelling that provides information on energy content only. Comprehensive and widely communicated education campaigns will be essential to guide consumers towards healthier choices.