To estimate the cost and affordability of healthy diets recommended by the 2016–2020 Vietnamese food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG).

Cross-sectional analysis. The Cost of a Healthy Diet (CoHD) indicator was used to estimate the lowest cost of healthy diets and compare the cost differences by food group, region and seasonality. The affordability of healthy diets was measured by further comparing the CoHD to food expenditures and incomes.

Food prices of 176 food items from January 2016 to December 2020 were derived using data from monthly Consumer Price Index databases nationally and regionally.

Food expenditures and incomes of participants from three latest Vietnam Household Living Standard Surveys were used.

The average CoHD between 2016 and 2020 in Vietnam was 3·08 international dollars using 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (24 070 Vietnamese Dongs). The nutrient-rich food groups, including protein-rich foods, vegetables, fruits and dairy, comprised approximately 80 % of the total CoHD in all regions, with dairy accounting for the largest proportion. Between 2016 and 2020, the cheapest form of a healthy diet was affordable for all high-income and upper-middle-income households but unaffordable for approximately 70 % of low-income households, where adherence to the Vietnamese FBDG can cost up to 70 % of their income.

Interventions in local food systems must be implemented to reduce the cost of nutrient-rich foods to support the attainment of healthier diets in the Vietnamese population, especially for low-income households.

To provide a cross-country analysis of selection, availability, prices and affordability of essential medicines for mental health conditions, aiming to identify areas for improvement.

We used the World Health Organization (WHO) online repository of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) to extract information on the inclusion of essential psychotropic medicines within each country's EML. Data on psychotropic medicine availability, price and affordability were obtained from the Health Action International global database. Additional information on country availability, prices and affordability of essential medicines for mental disorders was identified by searching, up to January 2021, PubMed/Medline, CINAHIL, Scopus and the WHO Regional Databases. We summarised and compared the indicators across lowest-price generic and originator brand medicines in the public and private sectors, and by country income groups.

A total of 112 national EMLs were analysed, and data on psychotropic medicine availability, price and affordability were obtained from 87 surveys. While some WHO essential psychotropic medicines, such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, amitriptyline, carbamazepine and diazepam, were selected by most national lists, irrespective of the country income level, other essential medicines, such as risperidone or clozapine, were included by most national lists in high-income countries, but only by a minority of lists in low-income countries. Up to 40% of low-income countries did not include medicines that have been in the WHO list for decades, such as long-acting fluphenazine, lithium carbonate and clomipramine. The availability of generic and originator psychotropic medicines in the public sector was below 50% for all medicines, with low-income countries showing rates lower than the overall average. Analysis of price data revealed that procurement prices were lower than patient prices in the public sector, and medicines in the private sector were associated with the highest prices. In low-income countries, the average patient price for amitriptyline and fluoxetine was three times the international unit reference price, while the average patient price for diazepam was ten times the international unit reference price. Affordability was higher in the public than the private sector, and in high-income than low-income countries.

Access to medicines for mental health conditions is an ongoing challenge for health systems worldwide, and no countries can claim to be fully aligned with the general principle of providing full access to essential psychotropic medicines. Low availability and high costs are major barriers to the use of and adherence to essential psychotropic medicines, particularly in low-and middle-income countries.

Affordable nutrition refers to the relation between nutrient density of foods and their monetary cost. There are limited data on affordable nutrition in low- and middle-income countries. The present study aimed to develop a nutrient density score and nutrient affordability metrics for 377 most consumed foods in Brazil.

The foods were aggregated into seven major food groups and four NOVA food categories. Nutrient composition data were obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Food prices were obtained from retailer websites and were converted to prices per 100 g and 418 kJ. The Nutrient Rich Food (NRF8.2) score was based on protein, fiber, vitamins A, C and E, Ca, Fe and K. Nutrients to limit were sugar and Na. Affordability was measured as kcal/R$ and nutrients/R$.

Grains, fats and sweets were more energy dense and had lower NRF8.2 scores than dairy, vegetables and fruits. Grains, fats and sweets were the lowest cost sources of energy. Vegetables and fruits, beans, nuts and seeds and eggs and dairy were the lowest cost sources of multiple nutrients. Ultra-processed foods (48 % of total) had higher energy density and lower NRF8.2 scores than did unprocessed foods. In Brazil, fruits, vegetables and dairy products offered the most nutrients per real.

Analysis of the relationship between nutrient density of foods and their cost can help identify locally available foods that are nutrient rich, affordable and culturally acceptable. Achieving high nutrient density at an affordable cost should be the goal of Brazil’s food systems.

The main objective was to assess the cost, acceptability and affordability of the Cypriot Diabetic Healthy Food Basket (DHFB).

The development of DHFB was based on the Cypriot HFB with adjustments based on the nutritional guidelines for diabetes as developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and information retrieved through the questionnaires. Two DHFB were constructed for adult women and adult men (±40 years) diagnosed with diabetes. Affordability was defined as the cost of DHFB as a percentage of the Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI).

Cyprus.

422 diabetic patients aged 18–87 years from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

DHFB consists of eight food categories, similar to Cypriot HFB, but different specific food items. The total monthly budget for a diabetic woman is about 15 % (25·68 Euros less) lower compared with HFB, and the relative percentage for a diabetic man is about 16 % (37·58 Euros less). The total monthly budget for a diabetic woman is about 30 % lower (60·32 Euros less) compared with that of a diabetic man. For low-income adults receiving GMI, the proportion of income that would need to be spent on DHFB ranges from around 30 to 42 % for women and men, respectively.

The cost of DHFB is lower compared with HFB, meaning that nutritional treatment based on the practice guidelines for diabetes could be a cost-efficient therapy for these patients. DHFB is still not affordable among low-income persons.