Healthy Food Prices Increased More Than the Prices of Unhealthy Options during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Concurrent Challenges to the Food System.

Food prices have escalated due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on global food systems, and other regional shocks and stressors including climate change and war. Few studies have applied a health lens to identify the most affected foods. This study aimed to assess costs and affordability of habitual (unhealthy) diets and recommended (healthy, equitable and more sustainable) diets and their components in Greater Brisbane, Queensland, Australia from 2019 to 2022 using the Healthy Diets Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing protocol. Affordability was determined for reference households at three levels of income: median, minimum wage, and welfare-dependent. The recommended diet cost increased 17.9%; mostly in the last year when the prices of healthy foods, such as fruit, vegetables and legumes, healthy fats/oils, grains, and meats/alternatives, increased by 12.8%. In contrast, the cost of the unhealthy foods and drinks in the habitual diet 'only' increased 9.0% from 2019 to 2022, and 7.0% from 2021 to 2022. An exception was the cost of unhealthy take-away foods which increased by 14.7% over 2019-2022. With government COVID-19-related payments, for the first time recommended diets were affordable for all and food security and diets improved in 2020. However, the special payments were withdrawn in 2021, and recommended diets became 11.5% less affordable. Permanently increasing welfare support and providing an adequate minimum wage, while keeping basic, healthy foods GST-free and increasing GST to 20% on unhealthy foods, would improve food security and diet-related health inequities. Development of a Consumer Price Index specifically for healthy food would help highlight health risks during economic downturns.

"When all else fails you have to come to the emergency department": Overarching lessons about emergency care resilience from frontline clinicians in Pacific Island countries and territories during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to test health systems resilience worldwide. Low- and middle-income country (LMIC) health care systems have considerable experience in disasters and disease outbreaks. Lessons from the preparedness and responses to COVID-19 in LMICs may be valuable to other countries.This policy paper synthesises findings from a multiphase qualitative research project, conducted during the pandemic to document experiences of Pacific Island Country and Territory (PICT) frontline clinicians and emergency care (EC) stakeholders. Thematic analysis and synthesis of enablers related to each of the Pacific EC systems building blocks identified key factors contributing to strengthened EC systems.Effective health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic occurred when frontline clinicians and 'decision makers' collaborated with respect and open communication, overcoming healthcare workers' fear and discontent. PICT EC clinicians demonstrated natural leadership and strengthened local EC systems, supporting essential healthcare. Despite resource limitations, PICT cultural strengths of relational connection and innovation ensured health system resilience. COVID-19 significantly disrupted services, with long-tail impacts on non-communicable disease and other health burdens.Lessons learned in responding to COVID-19 can be applied to ongoing health system strengthening initiatives. Optimal systems improvement and sustainability requires EC leaders' involvement in current decision-making as well as future planning. Search strategy and selection criteria: Search strategy and selection criteria We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, WHO resources, Pacific and grey literature using search terms 'emergency care', 'acute/critical care', 'health care workers', 'emergency care systems/health systems', 'health system building blocks', 'COVID-19', 'pandemic/surge event/disease outbreaks' 'Low- and Middle-Income Countries', 'Pacific Islands/region' and related terms. Only English-language articles were included. Funding: Phases 1 and 2A of this study were part of an Epidemic Ethics/World Health Organization (WHO) initiative, supported by Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Grant 214711/Z/18/Z. Copyright of the original work on which this publication is based belongs to WHO. The authors have been given permission to publish this manuscript. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of WHO. Co-funding for this research was received from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Foundation via an International Development Fund Grant. RM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Postgraduate Scholarship and a Monash Graduate Excellence Scholarship. GOR is supported by a NHMRC Early Career Research Fellowship. CEB is supported by a University of Queensland Development Research Fellowship. None of these funders played any role in study design, results analysis or manuscript preparation.

Lessons from the frontline: Leadership and governance experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic response across the Pacific region.

Background: Universal access to safe, effective emergency care (EC) during the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated its centrality to healthcare systems. The 'Leadership and Governance' building block provides policy, accountability and stewardship to health systems, and is essential to determining effectiveness of pandemic response. This study aimed to explore the experience of leadership and governance during the COVID-19 pandemic from frontline clinicians and stakeholders across the Pacific region. Methods: Australian and Pacific researchers collaborated to conduct this large, qualitative research project in three phases between March 2020 and July 2021. Data was gathered from 116 Pacific regional participants through online support forums, in-depth interviews and focus groups. A phenomenological approach shaped inductive and deductive data analysis, within a previously identified Pacific EC systems building block framework. Findings: Politics profoundly influenced pandemic response effectiveness, even at the clinical coalface. Experienced clinicians spoke authoritatively to decision-makers; focusing on safety, quality and service duty. Rapid adaptability, past surge event experience, team-focus and systems-thinking enabled EC leadership. Transparent communication, collaboration, mutual respect and trust created unity between frontline clinicians and 'top-level' administrators. Pacific cultural assets of relationship-building and community cohesion strengthened responses. Interpretation: Effective governance occurs when political, administrative and clinical actors work collaboratively in relationships characterised by trust, transparency, altruism and evidence. Trained, supported EC leadership will enhance frontline service provision, health security preparedness and future Universal Health Coverage goals. Funding: Epidemic Ethics/World Health Organization (WHO), Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Grant 214711/Z/18/Z. Co-funding: Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Foundation, International Development Fund Grant.

Lessons from the frontline: Documenting the experiences of Pacific emergency care clinicians responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across the Pacific region have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and emergency care (EC) clinicians have been on the frontline of response efforts. Their responsibilities have extended from triage and clinical management of patients with COVID-19 to health system leadership and coordination. This has exposed EC clinicians to a range of ethical and operational challenges.This paper describes the context and methodology of a rapid, collaborative, qualitative research project that explored the experiences of EC clinicians in Pacific LMICs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted in three phases, with data obtained from online regional EC support forums, key informant interviews and focus group discussions. A phenomenological approach was adopted, incorporating a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Research findings, reported in other manuscripts in this collection, will inform multi-sectoral efforts to improve health system preparedness for future public health emergencies. Funding: Epidemic Ethics/World Health Organization (WHO) initiative, supported by Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Grant 214711/Z/18/Z (Phases 1 and 2A) and an Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Foundation International Development Fund Grant.

Lessons from the frontline: Documenting the pandemic emergency care experience from the Pacific region - Infrastructure and equipment.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted challenges for all health systems worldwide. This research aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 across the Pacific especially with regards to emergency care (EC) and clinicians' preparations and responses. Methods: A collaboration of Australia and Pacific researchers conducted prospective qualitative research over 18 months of the pandemic. In this three phase study data were gathered from Emergency Clinicians and stakeholders through online support forums, in-depth interviews and focus groups. A phenomenological methodological approach was employed to explore the lived experience of participants. This paper discusses the findings of the study regarding the EC building block of 'Infrastructure and Equipment.' Findings: Pre-existing infrastructure and equipment were not sufficient to help control the pandemic. Adequate space and correct equipment were essential needs for Pacific Island emergency clinicians, with donations, procurement and local ingenuity required for suitable, sustainable supplies and facilities. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) conferred a sense of security and increased Health Care Workers willingness to attend to patients. Interpretation: Investing in adequate infrastructure and appropriate equipment is crucial for an effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The sustainability of such investments in the Pacific context is paramount for ongoing EC and preparation for future surge responses and disasters. Funding: Phases 1 and 2A of this study were part of an Epidemic Ethics/World Health Organization (WHO) initiative, supported by Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Grant 214711/Z/18/Z. Co-funding for this research was received from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Foundation via an International Development Fund Grant.

Lessons from the frontline: The value of emergency care processes and data to pandemic responses across the Pacific region.

Background: Emergency care (EC) addresses the needs of patients with acute illness and injury, and has fulfilled a critical function during the COVID-19 pandemic. 'Processes' (e.g. triage) and 'data' (e.g. surveillance) have been nominated as essential building blocks for EC systems. This qualitative research sought to explore the impact of the pandemic on EC clinicians across the Pacific region, including the contribution of EC building blocks to effective responses. Methods: The study was conducted in three phases, with data obtained from online support forums, key informant interviews and focus group discussions. There were 116 participants from more than 14 Pacific Island Countries and Territories. A phenomenological approach was adopted, incorporating inductive and deductive methods. The deductive thematic analysis utilised previously identified building blocks for Pacific EC. This paper summarises findings for the building blocks of 'processes' and 'data'. Findings: Establishing triage and screening capacity, aimed at assessing urgency and transmission risk respectively, were priorities for EC clinicians. Enablers included support from senior hospital leaders, previous disaster experience and consistent guidelines. The introduction of efficient patient flow processes, such as streaming, proved valuable to emergency departments, and checklists and simulation were useful implementation strategies. Some response measures impacted negatively on non-COVID patients, and proactive approaches were required to maintain 'business as usual'. The pandemic also highlighted the value of surveillance and performance data. Interpretation: Developing effective processes for triage, screening and streaming, among other areas, was critical to an effective EC response. Beyond the pandemic, strengthening processes and data management capacity will build resilience in EC systems. Funding: Phases 1 and 2A of this study were part of an Epidemic Ethics/World Health Organization (WHO) initiative, supported by Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Grant 214711/Z/18/Z. Co-funding for this research was received from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Foundation via an International Development Fund Grant.

Lessons from the frontline: The COVID-19 pandemic emergency care experience from a human resource perspective in the Pacific region.

Background: This study explores emergency care (EC) and other frontline healthcare worker (HCW) experiences responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Pacific region. The crisis has reinforced the crucial role well-trained, resourced, and supported EC providers play in supporting vital health systems and services in all global regions not only during 'business as usual' periods, but in times of tremendous stress and surge. Methods: Qualitative data were collected from EC providers and relevant stakeholders in three research phases in 2020 and 2021. Data on the World Health Organization's (WHO) Human Resources Building Block, adapted for the Pacific EC context, was thematically analysed. Key findings were further analysed to identify enablers and barriers to effective EC pandemic management. Findings: 116 participants from across the Pacific region participated in this study. Five themes emerged: (1) EC providers performed multiple pandemic roles; (2) Importance of authorities' valuing frontline HCWs; (3) HCW mental health and exhaustion; (4) HCW tension managing stigma, personal/professional expectations, and chronic health needs; and (5) Building health and human resource capacity. Interpretation: This study significantly contributes to the limited scientific literature on HCW experiences responding to COVID-19 across the Pacific. Recommendations arising out of this research align with consensus priorities and standards that were identified pre-pandemic by health stakeholders across the Pacific for enhancing EC system development. With limited HCWs available for many Pacific nations, it is imperative the dignity and welfare of local HCWs is genuinely prioritised. Funding: Epidemic Ethics/WHO, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Grant 214711/Z/18/Z. Co-funding: Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Foundation, International Development Fund Grant.

Affordability of Heathy, Equitable and More Sustainable Diets in Low-Income Households in Brisbane before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased food insecurity worldwide, yet there has been limited assessment of shifts in the cost and affordability of healthy, equitable and sustainable diets. This study explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and income supplements provided by the Australian government on diet cost and affordability for low-income households in an Australian urban area. The Healthy Diets ASAP method protocol was applied to assess the cost and cost differential of current and recommended diets before (in 2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (late 2020) for households with a minimum-wage and welfare-only disposable household income, by area of socioeconomic disadvantage, in Greater Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Data were collected between August and October, 2020, from 78 food outlets and compared with data collected in the same locations between May and October, 2019, in an earlier study. The price of most healthy food groups increased significantly during the pandemic-with the exception of vegetables and legumes, which decreased. Conversely, the price of discretionary foods and drinks did not increase during the pandemic. The cost of the current and recommended diets significantly increased throughout this period, but the latter continued to be less expensive than the former. Due to income supplements provided between May and September 2020, the affordability of the recommended diet improved greatly, by 27% and 42%, for households with minimum-wage and welfare-only disposable household income, respectively. This improvement in the affordability of the recommended diet highlights the need to permanently increase welfare support for low-income families to ensure food security.

Affordability of current, and healthy, more equitable, sustainable diets by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness in Queensland: insights into food choice.

BACKGROUND: Poor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease globally and in Australia, and is inequitably distributed. As the price of healthy foods is a perceived barrier to improved diets, evidence on the cost and affordability of current (unhealthy) and recommended (healthy, more equitable and sustainable) diets is required to support policy action. METHODS: This study applied the Healthy Diets ASAP (Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing) methods protocol to measure the cost, cost differential and affordability of current and recommended diets for a reference household in Queensland, Australia. Food prices were collected in 18 randomly selected locations stratified by area of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness. Diet affordability was calculated for three income categories. RESULTS: Surprisingly, recommended diets would cost 20% less than the current diet in Queensland as a whole. Households spent around 60% of their food budget on discretionary choices (that is, those not required for health that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, salt and/or alcohol). Queensland families would need to spend around 23% of their income on recommended diets. However, recommended diets would not be affordable in low socioeconomic or very remote areas, costing 30 and 35% of median household income respectively. The government supplements due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic would improve affordability of recommended diets by 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings highlight that while price is one factor affecting consumer food choice, other drivers such as taste, convenience, advertising and availability are important. Nevertheless, the study found that recommended diets would be unaffordable in very remote areas, and that low-income families are likely experiencing food stress, irrespective of where they live in Queensland. Policy actions, such as increasing to 20% the current 10% tax differential between basic healthy, and unhealthy foods in Australia, and supplementing incomes of vulnerable households, especially in remote areas, are recommended to help improve diet equity and sustainability, and health and wellbeing for all.