Table 4.
Differences between the deprivation quintiles of the physical food outlet location and food outlet characteristics available on Uber Eats in Sydney, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand.
| Deprivation Quintiles | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Least Disadvantaged | Most Disadvantaged | p-Valuediff | |||||||||
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | |||||||
| Sydney, Australia, n (%) | 271 | (39.9) | 136 | (20.0) | 113 | (16.6) | 71 | (10.4) | 89 | (13.1) | |
| Delivery details | |||||||||||
| SEIFA IRSD deprivation quintile of delivery suburb, median (IQR) | 1 | (1–2) | 2 | (1–3) | 3 | (2–3) | 3 | (1–3) | 4 | (3–5) | <0.0001 |
| Delivery cost ($AUD), median (IQR) | 4.99 | (3.99–6.99) | 5.99 | (3.99–6.99) | 5.99 | (4.99–7.99) | 5.99 | (4.99–7.99) | 5.99 | (4.99–7.99) | <0.0001 |
| Delivery distance (km), median (IQR) | 2.90 | (1.7–3.8) | 2.90 | (1.9–4.0) | 3.20 | (2.3–4.2) | 3.00 | (2.0–4.3) | 3.20 | (1.8–4.1) | <0.0001 |
| Food outlet ‘healthiness’ score | |||||||||||
| ‘Healthiness’ score, median (IQR) | −8 | (−10–0) | −8 | (−10–0) | −8 | (−10–−8) | −8 | (−10–0) | −8 | (−10–−8) | 0.2307 |
| Unhealthy (score < −4), n (%) | 185 | (68) | 100 | (75) | 88 | (78) | 52 | (72) | 74 | (84) | 0.1307 |
| Less healthy (score −4 to 4), n (%) | 67 | (25) | 29 | (21) | 20 | (18) | 17 | (24) | 13 | (15) | |
| Healthy (score > 4), n (%) | 20 | (7) | 6 | (4) | 5 | (4) | 3 | (4) | 1 | (1) | |
| Most popular menu items | |||||||||||
| Proportion (%) of discretionary menu items, median (IQR) | 100 | (66.7–100) | 100 | (80–100) | 100 | (80–100) | 100 | (80–100) | 100 | (80–100) | 0.6167 |
| Auckland, New Zealand, n (%) | 48 | (12.2) | 109 | (27.2) | 71 | (18.0) | 95 | (24.1) | 49 | (12.4) | |
| Delivery details | |||||||||||
| NZDep2018 deprivation quintile of delivery suburb 1, median (IQR) | 1 | (1–2) | 2 | (1–2) | 3 | (2–3) | 3 | (2–4) | 4 | (3– 5) | <0.0001 |
| Delivery cost ($NZD), median (IQR) | 7.99 | (4.99–7.99) | 7.99 | (5.99–7.99) | 6.99 | (5.99–7.99) | 7.99 | (6.99–7.99) | 7.99 | (5.99–7.99) | <0.0001 |
| Delivery distance (km), median (IQR) | 3.00 | (1.8–4.2) | 3.20 | (2.0–4.5) | 2.80 | (1.9–4.4) | 3.60 | (2.4–4.7) | 2.8 | (2.1–4.1) | 0.0004 |
| Food outlet ‘healthiness’ score | |||||||||||
| ‘Healthiness’ score, median (IQR) | −8 | (−10–0) | −10 | (−10–0) | −10 | (−10–−8) | −10 | (−10–−8) | −10 | (−10–−8) | 0.0277 |
| Unhealthy (score < −4), n (%) | 27 | (56) | 75 | (69) | 55 | (77) | 75 | (79) | 42 | (86) | 0.0537 |
| Less healthy (score −4 to 4), n (%) | 18 | (38) | 29 | (27) | 14 | (20) | 16 | (17) | 5 | (10) | |
| Healthy (score > 4), n (%) | 3 | (6) | 5 | (5) | 2 | (3) | 4 | (4) | 2 | (4) | |
| Most popular menu items | |||||||||||
| Proportion (%) of discretionary menu items, median (IQR) | 95.0 | (80–100) | 85.7 | (70–100) | 100 | (80–100) | 100 | (80–100) | 100 | (85.7–100) | 0.0748 |
Q, quintile; n, number; IQR, interquartile range; AUD, Australian Dollar; NZD, New Zealand Dollar; km, kilometer; SEIFA IRSD, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage; NZDep, New Zealand Index of Deprivation. 1 Three suburbs had no NZDep 2018 available, therefore, 22 unique food outlets had missing data for deprivation quintile of physical food outlet location (5.6% of total unique food outlet locations for Auckland, New Zealand) and ten delivery suburbs had no NZDep 2018 available, therefore, 100 unique delivery routes had missing data for deprivation quintile of delivery suburb (5.4% of total unique delivery routes for Auckland, New Zealand).