“It’s not something that you just openly discuss” - Supporting British South Asian carers affected by drug and alcohol use

Posted by Jayne Black, Public Health Officer, Harm Reduction and Social Inclusion, Public Health Directorate, Newcastle City Council

Access to services, such as those related to drugs and alcohol and other health services, can be challenging. This challenge may be harder for some minority communities due to a variety of additional factors which impact people from accessing support when required. It is important that we identify these issues and barriers that prevent people in need from accessing help.

PROPS Community Connector, Fatema Rahman (C) with colleagues Annette
  Walby (L) and Helen Thompson (R), celebrating Eid at Fenham Library

In Newcastle, an ethnic minority needs assessment has been carried out and is available on our Joint Strategic Needs Assessment webpage.

We have also partnered with Northumbria University to explore barriers and perceptions to accessing drug and alcohol support.

An important area of focus is how family members are affected by a loved one’s substance use. In Newcastle, a recent research project backed by Fuse seedcorn funding investigated the perspective of British South Asian carers, who care for people who use drugs and/or alcohol, regarding their experiences and access to specialist drug and alcohol carer services in Newcastle.

The collaboration which included, co-production with people with lived experience, was between Newcastle City Council, PROPS (Specialist Family Drugs and Alcohol Service), Northumbria and Newcastle Universities.

What do we know are some of the barriers?

Attitudinal (personal)

The limited research suggests that attitudinal barriers within minority groups exist in relation to accessing care services. These are suggested to be in relation to not wanting to involve services. This is due to low awareness of services and availability, and concerns around cultural or religious appropriateness.

Stigma

Stigma is harmful and has been defined as the devaluing of an individual based on their characteristics or behaviour.

We know that stigma in general can have an impact on whether an individual seeks support for alcohol or drug issues, or other health issues.

Within the British South Asian and Muslim community, it has been identified that societal stigma, within the community, can impact upon people’s willingness to access help. This stigma may be centred around concerns of what other members of the community perceive about a particular individual or family and their use of alcohol or drugs.

Carers

The research evidence within this area rarely extends to those who are in a caring role for family or friends who are struggling with issues around alcohol or drugs. This could be an important area of focus, as support from a family member or friend is incredibly important. Whether day-to-day or during recovery, supporting carers is vital. However, it is worth noting that some people may not identify or recognise themselves as a carer and therefore, are unaware of support.

The Census of England and Wales in 2021 identified that North East England has the highest number of people providing unpaid care. It also suggests that unpaid carers in the North East provide the most hours of care.

Providing care may impact the health and wellbeing of a carer, this could include financial as well as if someone is a kinship carer. Therefore, it is important to identify if there are barriers to accessing carer support services for people who care for family members or friends using drugs and or alcohol.

What did we discover?

Our research results identified a variety of key areas. These areas related to the topic of drugs and alcohol in terms of it being ‘taboo’, with associated stigma, the barriers that are experienced for accessing family support, along with the general awareness of family support services.

Drug and alcohol use as a taboo topic

Carers highlighted the difficulty of discussing their loved one’s use of drugs and alcohol with other people who are close to them. The topic itself can be seen as something which creates unease. This creates a possible negative effect as talking with others may help create a supportive network and help carers feel supported and provided with guidance.

“the drug use; it’s not something that you just openly discuss. It’s like [frowned] upon. You know, people, I think, blame the parents, “well why aren’t you doing something?” […] Unless somebody can help you, you know, guide you, there’s no point having these discussions with people […] I mean, I’ve spoke to their grandma about it and stuff. Like, people who genuinely care.” 

                                                                             Participant

In contrast, others mentioned conversations about drugs and alcohol being more prevalent in the community, requiring more awareness for community members.

Barriers to accessing family support

The issue of stigma is evident from the discussion, with drug and or alcohol use being seen as an individual issue of choice, which not only impacts the individual, but affects the reputation of the family. It is seen as different to mental health issues, as something that people are unable to physically observe or have an understanding of.

“I don’t even talk about his mental health condition, ‘cos it’s a stigma. People like, laugh at it and things and say, ‘look, he’s barking; he’s crazy’. It’s this whole attitude that he’s crazy. You know, there’s no sympathy. […] it’s better and easier to get cancer than it is to [have anything] like that, because no one’s going to be understanding. […] People don’t understand, they think they’re putting it on half the time. They’re not understanding the side effects that it has.” 

                                                                            Participant 

There is recognition that seeing or being aware of someone in a community accessing help for drugs and alcohol, or in recovery, can help shift perceptions and show that support is accessible to other members of the community.

Misconceptions around confidentiality and issues of trust can be seen within those working with services or accessing a service. Carers need to be reassured that services are bound by confidentiality. In terms of confidentiality within the community, raising awareness about available support can play a major role in reducing stigma associated with engagement and seeking support.

There is hope in the organisations that provide family support services, and allowing a carer to progress on their support journey at their own pace is important.

“I got involved with them and *the family support service* were really good, because at that time, I didn’t want anyone to know, ‘cos I didn’t know what was happening and they offered me so many different solutions and like, I don’t have to see them straight away […] Cos some people don’t want to talk about… You know what I mean? So at that time, I didn’t want to see who I am in this. I just wanted to understand what’s happening.” 

                                                                             Participant

Awareness of family support services

It was identified that there is limited knowledge of services that provide support for drug and alcohol recovery. This may create difficulty, as the role of the carer can be a ‘navigator’. Therefore, limited knowledge may add an additional pressure to the carer, which was an issue raised during the interviews.

Services reaching into communities, rather than people who require support finding their own their way, is highlighted as being a positive - which can be used to make recommendations for a future response.

Using an approach which makes the most of existing support already within communities and working at a pace that suits the carer. Also, harnessing the power and visible importance of communities can create a support network, ensuring assistance is sustainable and effective.

“Over the phone, it was fine. Then eventually, they came to my house. Eventually met in cafes, then started a course with them.”

“[They] are very good with giving me a variety of choices that suited me when I needed, so whatever suits you, with patients and carers, however it suits them. However it suits every individual is different, so they met my needs.”     

                                                                             Participant

Recommendations

We must connect with those who have relationships with members of a community to enhance trust and help support people who need it. Recommendations from the research included outreach into the community for connections with leaders. This must include vital considerations around caring and family support.

Encouraging visibility of services and people in recovery or who have lived experience within the community is also important to help not only the carers, but those who are struggling with the use of alcohol and drugs.

Developing work in Newcastle

Work in Newcastle is being developed within this area. Public Health have been engaging with British South Asian community leaders to enhance treatment and recovery efforts including carers. Two key meetings were held with stakeholders such as the Bangladeshi Association, local Imams, and university researchers. These meetings facilitated open dialogue on barriers to treatment, cultural sensitivities, and support systems, building trust and shared goals.

Engagement with the Health and Race Equality Forum (HAREF) emphasised the initiative's importance, with leaders showing enthusiasm for ongoing collaboration. A rough plan is being developed from these discussions, with next steps involving continued dialogue and refining the action plan to meet community needs. This approach highlights the value of community-led, culturally informed initiatives in promoting health equity.

Newcastle is also working with PROPS to fund a part time South Asian Muslim worker who will serve as a community connector to bridge the gap between community and support services. This is building on their existing effective practice in this space. The community connector worker will provide tailored support to facilitate access to support, ensuring carers, and families get the help they need in a culturally sensitive manner.

Personal reflection

The research highlights the importance of the voice from carers and communities, and those with lived experience. The importance of understanding the issues from those with lived experience who are supporting someone and working through any daily challenges. We must ensure that valuable information that we discover from research, such as this, is used to act and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to be supported and live well.

How our ‘test & learn’ prototypes are strengthening Social Prescribing

Posted by Ang Broadbridge, Head of Implementation at Ways to Wellness, on #SocialPrescribingDay

Evaluation is often something that happens at the end of a project, but what if we built learning into the process from the very start?

At Newcastle-based charity Ways to Wellness, we believe that embedding a culture of learning from the outset helps social prescribing link workers share real-time insights, refine approaches, and ultimately improve support for the communities we serve.

One area where this model has been used is in maternal mental health

Co-designing for impact

A core part of our work is connecting with local communities to shape and refine prototypes that align with our mission:

• Improving health and wellbeing
• Tackling health inequalities
• Reducing demand on NHS services

To ensure our link workers could share learning, develop key messages, and highlight gaps in services, we adopted the Learning Communities model. As described in the Learning Communities Handbook, these are:

"A group of peers who come together in a safe space to reflect and share their judgements and uncertainties about their practice and to share ideas or experiences to collectively improve."

To embed this approach into recruitment and training, we:

• Included an expectation for link workers to actively engage in Learning Communities
• Encouraged participation in ‘test and learn’ approaches
• Provided ongoing support and facilitation to foster a sense of ownership and belonging.

This approach helped link workers collaborate across different host organisations, spanning locations across the North East and North Cumbria.

Extending learning into maternal mental health

One area where this model has been used is in maternal mental health. After eight months of Learning Community meetings, we expanded this approach through a series of external learning events. These events:

• Shared early insights from our maternal mental health prototypes
• Brought in new partners to co-develop next steps
• Strengthened cross-sector collaboration

A key learning was that while social prescribing is well known in GP practices, it was midwives and health visitors who played a crucial role in referring parents to our prototypes - roles that hadn’t previously collaborated with link workers.

By opening up new referral pathways, we helped develop best practices for integrating link workers into maternal healthcare settings.

Turning insights into action

Our Learning Communities aren’t just discussion spaces - they drive change. Link workers use them to:

• Identify barriers in accessing social prescribing
• Test new ways to connect people with support
• Share insights at external events and policy discussions

The impact has been tangible. For example, after testing different approaches, some link workers are now based in health appointment clinics - an innovation that has improved system-wide connectivity and access to services.

Why this approach matters

By embedding a culture of continuous learning, we are:

• Strengthening partnerships across health and care sectors
• Ensuring services are designed with communities, not just for them
• Maximising the impact of social prescribing

At Ways to Wellness, we believe that the voluntary sector, healthcare services, and community organisations must work together to tackle health inequalities.

That’s why we’re committed to testing, learning, and adapting - so that social prescribing continues to evolve, improve, and reach the people who need it most.

Find out more at: waystowellness.org.uk

Image credits: Ways to Wellness Limited company number: 08798423

Amplifying voices to tackle inequalities in South Asian and Muslim communities

Posted by Zeibeda Sattar, Assistant Professor in Health Policy, Northumbria University

L-R: Greta Defeyter, Humaira Khan and Zeb Sattar 

I recently had the opportunity to chair the Health Inequalities Symposium hosted by the Centre for Health and Social Equity (CHASE) at Northumbria University, in collaboration with Fuse. It was an incredible event that brought together over 100 people, including researchers, policymakers, healthcare providers, and community members, all focused on tackling the pressing health challenges facing South Asian and Muslim (SAM) communities. The main goal was clear: to find ways to bridge the gap between research and real-world impact.

The presentations were enlightening and underscored how critical it is to engage with minority communities effectively to shape public health services. Each speaker highlighted a different, but equally important, health issue impacting SAM communities. Public partner Humaira Khan, who co-chaired the symposium, pointed out that the mental health challenges facing South Asian and Muslim are often misunderstood and stigmatised. Hearing her talk about the need for culturally competent healthcare really hit home. Her words - “researchers are warriors; they don’t fight for themselves - they amplify the voices of the people” - perfectly captured why events like this matter.

“researchers are warriors; they don’t fight for themselves - they amplify the voices of the people” 

Humaira Khan, public partner

Dr Sarah Croke from the University of Manchester spoke about the language and cultural barriers that often lead to untreated health issues. This can leave community members struggling because healthcare services aren’t designed with South Asian and Muslim needs in mind. Dr Saeed Ahmed from Sunderland Royal Hospital took on the tough topic of organ donation disparities. He pointed out the harsh reality: SAM communities are in desperate need of organ transplants but are also among the least likely to donate. His call to raise awareness and educate was powerful, especially when he reminded us that one donor can change up to nine lives.

There were also discussions about everyday barriers that many of us face but rarely see addressed. Professor Defeyter from Northumbria University talked about the lack of culturally appropriate meals, like halal options, in schools. It was a reminder of how even things like food choices can create a sense of exclusion for our children and why legal changes to recognise cultural diversity are long overdue.

I found Simon Luddington’s (SearchNewcastle) presentation about the West-End Befrienders project particularly inspiring. It’s easy to forget how isolating language barriers can be and how vital social connections are for our wellbeing. Their work in bringing people together, especially in helping with access to primary care and breaking down isolation, felt like a model that should be replicated.

One of the more challenging discussions was around drug and alcohol use in our communities. Lydia Lochhead’s (Northumbria University) research laid bare the stigma that prevents so many from seeking help. It’s a tough conversation to have, but hearing about Mushtaq Dakri’s community-led approach to addiction support was a beacon of hope. They offer a holistic service - combining therapy, physical activity, and spirituality - and it’s designed by and for the SAM community. Knowing there’s a women-only support space now available shows their commitment to evolving and meeting community needs.

Fuse Associate Director Dr Floor Christie and Dr Rawand Jarrar from Sunderland University, wrapped up the day with their work on improving cancer screening uptake among Muslim women. Their workshops have reached over 260 women, and it’s encouraging to see how culturally sensitive approaches can genuinely improve health outcomes. This was a reminder of how vital it is to build services that reflect our communities.

As I reflect on the symposium, it’s clear to me that these health inequalities are not just about accessing services - they’re about how these services are designed and delivered. The urgency to address these gaps cannot be overstated. The event reinforced the need for services that truly understand and respect South Asian and Muslim communities, going beyond just offering a service to creating environments where people feel welcomed, understood, and valued.

Leaving the symposium, I felt hopeful. Change is possible, but it won’t happen without consistent engagement with our communities. Trust needs to be built, and community voices must be represented and acted upon. The gap between research and impact can be bridged if we keep pushing for culturally relevant, accessible, and respectful health services.

Plans are already in place for a follow-up symposium in November, focusing once again on the health inequalities that continue to affect SAM communities. I urge everyone to get involved. This is our chance to be part of the change and to make our voices heard in the ongoing fight for a more equitable health system. Sign-up details will be shared soon, and I hope to see more of us there - because turning these conversations into action is how we create a healthier future for all of us.

Is it ethical to promote quitting smoking to patients with mental health issues?

Posted by Susan Jones, Research Associate, Teesside University

Smoking rates and levels of dependency are high in people with psychiatric problems and, it has been argued, that smoking helps people with mental health disorders to cope with the struggles in their lives (Malone et al., 2018). On the other hand, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2013) argues that introducing a smokefree culture into NHS Trusts offers an opportunity for patients and staff to benefit in terms of physical and mental health and is achievable with appropriate support. Certainly this viewpoint was supported in our research:

"I think for some of our patients because it’s actually a learning disabilities hospital but obviously a lot of them have mental health issues as well, it increased their confidence and self-esteem. A lot of our patients had poor self-esteem and they actually achieved something by stopping smoking, they achieved something that was extremely difficult and I think it made them think, if we can do that we can do other things as well." 

Frontline Staff, Trust B

Nevertheless, by taking this position, NICE have highlighted a contentious issue. In our research we found that the patients and healthcare community were still divided about introducing smokefree policies and supporting patients and staff to quit smoking (Jones et al., 2020). There was a lot of passion on both sides! In some wards (mostly those with non-acute patients, such as those with learning difficulties or associated with forensics) staff and patients took on the challenge to change their environment and behaviours and embrace a smokefree way of life. They were creative in how they prepared for quitting and even made it fun, with games and decorations.

In other areas e.g. acute services, the challenges were different and there was much more scepticism about the ethics and value of offering support to quit smoking. Although awareness raising and training in smoking cessation was available, the role of choice and a pro-smoking narrative was widespread. 

Normalisation of smokefree policies

In mental health, smoking is an established cultural norm both in the community and in healthcare settings. We found that it is seen as an acceptable, even beneficial, coping mechanism for people who suffer from mental health disorders.

Research evidence would argue the converse; that the physical and mental benefits are far greater than continuing to smoke (Harker & Cheeseman, 2016). People with psychiatric problems tend to be highly addicted and there is a definite need to push through the initial stages of withdrawal from nicotine, which can be harder due to greater dependency, and more complicated due to interactions with psychiatric medication. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that people still want to be physically healthier, free from the downsides of addiction and supported to achieve these goals (Harker & Cheeseman, 2016).

Promoting normalisation through collective action

Perseverance is required to change any norm; old habits and perspectives die hard and continual reinforcement of new patterns are needed for success (Jones et al., 2020). This applies at an individual level but also at the organisational level.

Role of context

Our environment is so important in enabling or blocking behaviour; or even ‘nudging’ it in a certain direction (Ratschen et al, 2011). If a hospital is smokefree, then patients who don’t smoke will be able to maintain their status as non-smokers more easily. Alternatively, a smoking environment legitimises and encourages continued smoking. 

Sustainability

Maintaining changed behaviours, like smoking, is known to be challenging; however there is an inherent contradiction in implementing smokefree policies on-site only. Patients and staff move between hospital and community and it is all too easy for this to be seen as abstaining while in hospital, rather than quitting for good.

What we found 

Two mental health trusts in North East England - Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust and Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust - went smokefree in March 2016. In our research to evaluate the implementation of smokefree policies within the trusts, we found that:

• Inroads had been made in changing an entrenched, smoking culture into one that was smokefree on Trust sites. However, there remained variations across specialities and challenges to full implementation.
• Once there was sufficient ‘buy-in’ to a non-smoking culture it was anticipated that the issues relating to enforcement and perceived risk would diminish.
• Long-term perseverance is required to establish smokefree sites in participating mental health trusts, supported by robust, routine, data collection.
• Normalisation Process Theory and logic modelling are helpful in increasing understanding of the dynamic implementation process. 

Policy relevance and implications

• Careful use of language is needed to encourage smokefree policies to be seen positively.
• When interpretation of the term ‘patient leave’ was left open for leave to be used for smoking, it led to inconsistent practice.
• Consistency of enforcement is key to success.
• There were many details that needed to be worked out following the introduction of the policies; suggesting a requirement for ongoing review and response in a timely manner.

Read more about Sue's research in this Fuse research brief: Introducing smokefree policies into hospital mental health services.

References:

Harker K, Cheeseman H. The mental health and smoking action report: the

stolen years. 2016 [Available from: https://ash.org.uk/information-and-resources/reports-submissions/reports/the-stolen-years] 

Jones, Susan E; Billett, A; Mulrine, S; Clements, H; Hamilton S. (2020) Supporting mental health service users to stop smoking: findings from a mixed method evaluation of the implementation of nicotine management policies into two mental health trusts. BMC Public Health, 20:1619

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09673-7

Malone V, Harrison R, Daker-White G. Mental health service user and staff

perspectives on tobacco addiction and smoking cessation: a meta-synthesis

of published qualitative studies. J Psychiatr Ment Hlt. 2018;25(4):270–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12458

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Public health guidance 48:

smoking: acute, maternity and mental health services. London: NICE; 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph48

Ratschen E, Britton J, McNeill A. The smoking culture in psychiatry: time for

change. Brit J Psychiat. 2011;198(1):6–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.081372

Images:

1. “Smoke-Free Bench” by Michael Coghlan via Flickr.com, copyright © 2011: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikecogh/5645977385/in/photostream/ (CC BY-SA 2.0)

2. Copyright © South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: https://www.southtees.nhs.uk/news/services/trust-to-go-completely-smokefree/ (2019)

The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the author's employer or organisation.

Let’s kick Coca-Cola out of Christmas for good

Posted by Robin Ireland, Director of Research, Food Active, PhD Candidate, University of Glasgow @robinHEG

You may have thought Coca-Cola invented Christmas. In a sort of way, they did of course. Arguably, modern Santa was designed by an advertising campaign for Coca-Cola in 1933 (Forsyth 2016). And, Santa, whether in the twentieth or twenty-first century, is all about encouraging us to consume. In Coca-Cola’s case, a sweet brown liquid that should logically have absolutely nothing to do with a winter celebration in, originally at least, the Northern Hemisphere.

Coca-Cola has been creative at making up traditions as part of their marketing campaigns since the soft drink was invented in Atlanta, USA, in the late nineteenth century. They have been muscling in on our favourite cultural practices pretty much ever since, in their growth to become a hugely successful and profitable transnational corporation. They have been involved with the Olympics since 1928 when vendors set up branded kiosks in Amsterdam (Keys 2004). A similar relationship with the FIFA World Cup from 1975 was seen as critical at expanding Coca-Cola’s influence into China and the Arab countries (Sugden and Tomlinson 1998).

Coca-Cola expert at manipulating our deepest wishes and our emotions whether they are talking Christmas or football. The pandemic may have prevented their Christmas Truck tour in the UK, but, never fear, their international marketing department is on the case. A two and a half minute commercial on YouTube featuring a little girl and her Dad’s attempts to deliver her letter to Santa at the North Pole had already received over 37 million views at the time of writing, whilst pulling at our heart strings.

Professor Dame Sally Davies, the previous Chief Medical Officer in England, wrote, “Commercial companies use a range of strategies and other approaches to promote products and choices that affect human and environmental health, defined as the commercial determinants of health” (Davies 2019 Annex D, p.4). And Coca-Cola are the masters. Luke Allen (Allen 2020) described the corporation as “virtually a cartoon villain in many public health circles” (p.29). Commercial determinants of health can be divided into four channels in which transnational corporations influence health (Kickbusch et al. 2016). Let’s consider how Coca-Cola use these channels.

The marketing is the most obvious. The red and white Coca-Cola brand is ubiquitous. This year the Christmas Truck Tour will not be visiting Liverpool or Glasgow and other major British cities. But the corporation’s partnership with the Premier League enabled it to tour those city centres in 2019.

This year the Christmas Truck Tour will not be visiting major British cities but the corporation’s 
partnership with the Premier League enabled it to tour those city centres in 2019

How about lobbying then? Marion Nestle (2015) has done a great job in describing how the ‘soda industry’ has learned from the tactics of the tobacco industry in funding dubious research. In funding campaigns and legal challenges to taxes on sugary drinks for example.

As many transnational corporations are criticised for the damage that consumption of their products can cause to human health, so, many try to position themselves as good corporate citizens. Coca-Cola adopt the same tactics and support a number of charities such as FareShare, Street Games, the World Wildlife Fund and Special Olympics GB. It’s sad that in a tough world, it’s often left to corporations to fund good causes rather than government. I thought that had been left in the Victorian age rather than reappearing in the twenty-first century. Coca-Cola also support the Department of Transport’s THINK road safety campaign. In this a volunteer is encouraged to be a Designated Driver to bring intoxicated friends home safely from their Christmas parties. The language of a “responsible drinking culture” is all part of the transnational corporations’ tactics of blaming all of us for believing their marketing and over-consuming their products. That’s right, the soaring levels of overweight and obesity and distressing images of tooth decay amongst youngsters in the UK, are all down to us, the irresponsible parents.

Finally, transnational corporations are experts at developing extensive supply chains to amplify their global ambitions. According to Nestle (2015), Coca-Cola claims to sell its products in two hundred countries with only Cuba and North Korea escaping its clutches. And that’s down to US trade embargoes not to Coca-Cola’s marketing executives.

It’s very hard to argue against Coca-Cola’s Christmas truck tour. Food Active and public health advocates have done so for many years being called the fun police along the way and advocates of the nanny state. We can only speculate the reasons why the tour has been scaled back in the North West in recent years (where Food Active largely operates), but we would take some comfort in the idea that our lobbying played a role in steering the truck off course.

Allen (2020), referenced Coca-Cola’s 2018 annual report, to show the corporation spends approximately US$4 billion per year on advertising. And they wouldn’t be spending that kind of money if the advertising didn’t work. The marketing has persuaded some that Christmas isn’t Christmas without the Coca-Cola Truck Tour. Well, you know the Holidays ARE Coming this year. Because this dreadful pandemic has at least kept some of Coca-Cola’s marketing out of our towns. Let’s just hope that the growing link between obesity and Covid-19 (Alberca et al. 2020) may encourage more to consider how we can limit the advertising of Coca-Cola and other transnational corporations that promote their high in fat, sugar and/or salt products to children. And let’s start to kick Coca-Cola out of Christmas.


References:

Alberca, R.W., Oliveira, L.d.M., Branco, A.C.C.C., Pereira, N.Z. and Sato, M.N. (2020) 'Obesity as a risk factor for COVID-19: an overview', Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1-15, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1775546.

Allen, L.N. (2020) 'Commercial Determinants of Global Health' in Kickbusch, I., Ganten, D. and Moeti, M., eds., Handbook of Global Health, Geneva: Springer International.

Davies, S.C. (2019) Time to Solve Childhood Obesity, London, available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/837907/cmo-special-report-childhood-obesity-october-2019.pdf [accessed 27 November 2020].

Forsyth, M. (2016) 'Coca-Cola didn’t invent Santa ... the 10 biggest Christmas myths debunked', The Guardian, 21 December 2016, available: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/21/coca-cola-didnt-invent-santa-the-10-biggest-christmas-myths-debunked [accessed 27 November 2020].

Keys, B. (2004) 'Spreading Peace, Democracy , and Coca-Cola®: Sport and American Cultural Expansion in the 1930s', Diplomatic History, 28(2), 165-196.

Kickbusch, I., Allen, L. and Franz, C. (2016) 'The commercial determinants of health', The Lancet, 4, 895-896.

Nestle, M. (2015) Soda Politics. Taking On Big Soda (And Winning). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sugden, J. and Tomlinson, A. (1998) FIFA and the Contest for World Football. Who rules the peoples' game? , Cambridge: Polity Press.

Image 2: Coca-Cola Tour Bus. Liverpool, March 2019. Photo courtesy of E.Boyland.

The views expressed in posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Fuse (the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health) or the author's employer or organisation.

Catching golden opportunities to create public health evidence as they fly by...

Posted by Dr Helen Walters, NIHR Public Health Consultant Advisor

This week it was announced that a UK collaboration led by Fuse had been awarded prestigious funding to lead a Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Team (PHIRST), as part of a new national scheme. 

Dr Helen Walters, NIHR Public Health Consultant Advisor

Here Helen Walters introduces the four newly launched public health research teams, contracted under the PHIRST scheme, to enable local authorities to rapidly evaluate interventions aiming to improve health and tackle health inequalities in their areas.

When I was a Director of Public Health in London I knew that my team were delivering innovative schemes that affected large numbers of people. Our hope was that the schemes would improve health and reduce the health inequalities experienced by some highly deprived populations. But we didn’t really know whether they were achieving this.

Did the Healthy Schools programme working across more than 1,500 schools in the capital improve the health of thousands of children? Did the Healthy Workplace award scheme improve sick leave levels for London’s employers? Would getting the Healthy Streets approach into the heart of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy make any difference to physical activity levels in the city?

We were basing these schemes on the little evidence that was available, but we could not find a way to get them evaluated to build that evidence-base any further. Public health practice in local government is mainly distant from academic public health research. Local government does not have a culture of undertaking research. It moves fast, and does not have routes into research funding. Golden opportunities to learn and evaluate were being lost.

The PHIRST Scheme

The NIHR’s Public Health Research programme (PHR) is experimenting with a new scheme to try and solve this conundrum – the PHIRST scheme. PHIRST stands for Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Teams. The idea is that the PHR contracts with four academic teams who are ready and waiting, fully-funded, to evaluate schemes that are happening in local government across the UK.

The timing could probably not have been worse but somehow, despite pestilence and lockdown, we have managed to appoint four teams, and to match them up with four local authorities that are keen to have their schemes evaluated. Issues include:

• free school breakfast clubs in Hammersmith and Fulham
• citizen-informed design of employment support in Fife - Fuse project in collaboration with Fife Council
• remote provision of drugs and alcohol services in Leeds 
• reducing exposure to adverts for foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) on the transport system in Yorkshire 

The PHIRST teams are led by prominent public health researchers: Ashley Adamson (Newcastle University), Susie Sykes (London South Bank University), Rona Campbell (University of Bristol), and Katherine Brown and Wendy Willis (University of Hertfordshire). They will work closely with each local authority to co-create the evaluation with the heavy lifting being undertaken by the PHIRST teams and fully funded by the NIHR, starting in September.

Timely and accessible research for local authorities

And in a few months the PHR programme will go out to Directors of Public Health and ask for more schemes to evaluate, so we can keep the PHIRST teams busy. If it works the plan is to make this a rolling programme.

Local authorities have huge opportunities to influence health and health inequalities but without an evidence-base they cannot maximise these opportunities. The hope is that this scheme will provide timely and easily accessible evaluations for those who are still hard-pushed Directors of Public Health so that, in the future, there will be an evidence-base.

For further information please visit the NIHR website or email phr@nihr.ac.uk.

The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Helen Walters' blog was originally published on the NIHR website.

Food shaming is not a game

Posted by Sarah Dempster, Registered Nutritionist (Public Health)

“Our current learning focus is food. We are exploring what makes a food healthy / unhealthy” says the notice board in the entrance to my daughter’s nursery. I sigh. Is this a battle I want to pick? I already had some difficult words with the Head Teacher last year about food-based rewards, and I don’t really want to become known as that mum who complains about every food-related activity that happens in the school. Especially when people don’t seem to get what it is that I’m actually complaining about.

I’ve worked in and around public health nutrition for ten years. Over the past few years - probably since having children of my own - I’ve become increasingly concerned about the way we communicate to children about food. Take this “teacher tested” educational game for four to eight year olds as an example:

I wonder if, in our worthy quest to do everything we can to improve children’s eating patterns, some of the things we say and do are having unintended consequences. What might be the impact of teaching nursery-age children to polarise foods into “unhealthy” versus “healthy” categories? What are we saying when we imply that people who eat so-called “junk” foods like burgers or pizza are “greedy”? What happens in children’s minds when they’re presented with those same “unhealthy” or “junk” foods as a reward for good behaviour? Or when their parent’s food choices are so constrained that a hotdog is the only option for dinner?

Mixed messages

My biggest concern relates to the disconnect between nutrition education and children’s day-to-day experiences of food. One UK study involving 9-10-year olds showed that children have difficulty interpreting healthy eating messages. An example quote was:

“it’s not true that chocolate’s bad for you because I eat chocolate, and I’m not completely fat, am I?” (Fairbrother, Curtis, & Goyder, 2016, p. 481)

Overall, it is thought that what children believe and know from their own experiences about food has a greater influence on their eating behaviours than what they are taught (Schultz & Danford, 2016). This makes me wonder why we’re teaching children about “healthy eating” at a young age at all - shouldn’t we just be showing them through the experiences we facilitate and/or provide for them and their families? 

What do children understand from nutrition education?

Health is an abstract concept and we know that young children are concrete thinkers. While they may be able to categorise foods as “healthy” or “unhealthy” by rote in pre-school, they are unlikely to make sense of why each food is in each category. They can understand that food provides energy but it isn’t until they are much older that they can accurately explain physiological reasons for eating (Inagaki & Hatano, 2006; Nguyen, Gordon, & McCullough, 2011; Slaughter & Ting, 2010). They find the concept of “prevention” particularly difficult (Legare & Gelman, 2014).

There’s little research on the impact this may have. However, Pinhas et al. (2013) found some evidence that healthy eating lessons could trigger eating disorder development in susceptible children, who may become preoccupied with food after learning about nutrition. We know that children are under pressure to conform to the “thin ideal” body type from a young age. One Australian study found that 34% of 5-year old girls were already restricting food (Damiano et al., 2015). Meanwhile, children demonstrate anti-fat attitudes from as early as two years old (Di Pasquale & Celsi, 2017). Oversimplifying the relationship between food and size in a game like Greedy Gorilla will at best be ineffective and at worst, fuel the well-known negative consequences of weight stigma (World Health Organization, 2017).

What does the curriculum actually say?

Food and nutrition is a focus area in UK curriculum frameworks, with defined knowledge and skills outcomes at specific ages or stages. Food literacy is covered in a much broader way than just teaching kids what to eat for health. This provides the opportunity for rich, multi-sensory learning experiences… how food is grown, how people from different countries and cultures eat, what different foods look, smell and taste like, how to prepare foods… and as children get older, bringing in critical appraisal around what influences our food choices (e.g. social, health-related or financial factors, the food industry, diet culture). There are lots of examples of good practice around this and it can be done in very positive and inclusive ways.

Until recently, there was little evidence of moralistic language such as “junk food” or reference to “unhealthy eating” within the curriculum. However, the Department for Education (2019) now states that by the end of primary school, children should know: “the characteristics of a poor diet and risks associated with unhealthy eating (including, for example, obesity)”. This worries me, especially for young children who are dependent on adults for all the food they consume, and because we know that weight bias is prevalent in education settings (Nutter et al., 2019).

Food education is really important for young children, but I think we need to look at how public health and education professionals collaborate to get it right for all children. This means improving our understanding of the impact of the language we use, to ensure that we are not fuelling fear, shame or stigma around food or body size.


References:

1. Fairbrother, H., Curtis, P., & Goyder, E. (2016). Making health information meaningful: Children’s health literacy practices. SSM - Population Health, 2, 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.06.005 
2. Schultz, C. M., & Danford, C. M. (2016). Children’s knowledge of eating: An integrative review of the literature. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.08.120 
3. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2006). Young Children’ s Conception of the Biological World. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00431.x
4. Nguyen, S. P., Gordon, C. L., & McCullough, M. B. (2011). Not as easy as pie. Disentangling the theoretical and applied components of children’s health knowledge. Appetite, 56(2), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.008 
5. Slaughter, V., & Ting, C. (2010). Development of ideas about food and nutrition from preschool to university. Appetite, 55(3), 556–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.09.004 
6. Legare, C. H., & Gelman, S. A. (2014). Examining Explanatory Biases in Young Children’s Biological Reasoning. Journal of Cognition & Development, 15(2), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.749480 
7. Pinhas, L., McVey, G., Walker, K. S., Norris, M., Katzman, D., & Collier, S. (2013). Trading Health for a Healthy Weight: The Uncharted Side of Healthy Weight Initiatives. Eating Disorders, 21(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2013.761082 
8. Damiano, S.R., Paxton, S.J., Wertheim, E.H., McLean, S.A. & Gregg, K.J. (2015) Dietary restraing of 5-year old girls: Associations with internalization of the thin ideal and maternal, media and peer influences. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48: 1166-1169. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22432
9. Di Pasquale, R. & Celsi, L. (2017) Stigmatization of Overweight and Obese Peers among Children. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00524 
10. World Health Organization (2017). Weight bias and obesity stigma: considerations for the WHO European Region. WHO: Geneva. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/obesity/publications/2017/weight-bias-and-obesity-stigma-considerations-for-the-who-european-region-2017)
11. Department for Education (2019) Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education: Statutory guidance for governing bodies, proprietors, head teachers, principals, senior leadership teams, teachers. Department for Education: London. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/805781/Relationships_Education__Relationships_and_Sex_Education__RSE__and_Health_Education.pdf
12. Nutter, S., Ireland, A., Alberga, A.S., et al. (2019). Weight Bias in Educational Settings:a Systematic Review.Current Obesity Reports, 8, 185-200. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13679-019-00330-8.pdf#page32

Policy, procedure, practice and plate-spinning - how to achieve a work-life balance

Posted by Susanne Nichol, Better Health at Work Award Programme Coordinator, Northern TUC

I regularly wish for an extra hour in the day, or a day in the week and I even more regularly feel like my frenetic movement from place to place whilst grabbing various coats, bags, children, laptops, papers and other extraneous articles is accompanied by the Benny Hill theme tune. And I know that I am absolutely not alone in this daily plate-spinning, multi-tasking blur that is reality for the vast majority of parents, carers – and well, everyone else!

However, I am fortunate to work for an employer that has a raft of measures in place to help me restore some balance. For example, having flexi-time means I can get a much needed hit of endorphins by going to the gym or out for a power-walk on my lunch hour, or before I have to sprint through the school gates lest my youngest child becomes an accidental boarder.

The Better Health At Work Award (BHAWA) is a regional flagship public health programme that is the result of a long-standing (currently celebrating a decade of making workplaces healthier), progressive partnership between 11 of the regional local authorities. This was evaluated in 2012 by Durham University, received a RAND Europe award in 2018 for its impact on health and wellbeing, and due to cross-organisational working between Local Authority specialist public health practitioners, academics and Fuse, was a featured element in the Prevention stream of the recently awarded regional NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) funding.

As BHAWA Coordinator I have contact with literally hundreds (currently over 400) workplaces across North East England and Cumbria, who cumulatively employ nearly a quarter of a million workers. One of the mandates of the BHAWA is that participants survey their staff biennially (at a minimum) and ask them what topics/ issues they’d like to see addressed or get more information/ support on and more often than not, work-life balance is ubiquitous in the top 5.

To me, this presents more of a challenge for both employer and employee than some of the other regular top 5 entries such as healthy eating, physical activity and mental health. Work-life balance encompasses all of those things and more, and whilst the application of all health topics is subjective, this even more so, as we all have our fulcrum in a different place – with a large measure of economics thrown in. Most of us would like to work less time for the same pay, but currently business demands and finances often make this unviable; conversely, whilst going to 3 days instead of 5 might give you perfect work-life balance, most of us wouldn’t be able to sustain a 40% reduction in salary.

Unfortunately, there is no quick fix or magic wand. However, there are multiple ways and means to mitigate work-life imbalance and to actively facilitate a redress in the right direction. The BHAWA takes a holistic approach to workplace health that emphasises making positive changes to all aspects of the workplace, from the infrastructure and logistics, to the pervading culture of staff and management engagement and interaction – and everything in between.

So, how do they do it and what does ‘good’ look like? Well, based on my six years of experience I can safely say that the best employers take a wholesale approach and embed health and wellbeing into the holy workplace triumvirate of policy, procedure and practice.

It all starts with having fit for purpose policies in place, specifically such as Flexible Working; one of our workplaces operates a best practice ‘Adult Working’ policy, which is uber-flexible, employee-led and based around a mutually trusting relationship, so if Costa is a conducive place for them to deliver their work in between school-runs or meetings, then so be it. More and more participants are also introducing ‘stuck not sick’ policies that allocate a bank of ‘reserve’ hours that people can use to deal with unexpected issues, such as an ill child or a flooded kitchen.

Then there are underpinning procedures like regular and supportive line management, meetings/1-2-1s that start with the question ‘How are you?’ which allows for an open dialogue and an easier conversation around any issues and hopefully a subsequent resolution. But, what is of paramount importance is the active implementation of policy and procedure. If an employer has the best policy in the world, yet nobody actually knows about it, then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Awareness, buy-in, good communication/training and a practical approach is imperative here.

Having managers who are properly supported to understand and apply the policy in practice is fundamental. They can do this in various ways; by advertising jobs as flexible from day one, supporting a range of flexible working options such as home-working, flexi-time, or compressed hours; reminding colleagues that they can (and should) take their lunch break/leave and can attend medical appointments or workplace campaigns or activities like on-site flu jabs, or a lunch-time yoga class, without it being detrimental to pay.

One thing is for certain - work-life balance is for life and not just for a week



Image:

1.  'plate spinning' by Clancy Mason via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0): https://www.flickr.com/photos/clancy123/1805082629
2. 'I'm working through my lunch hour. Work - life balance survey' by David Austin via University of Kent, British Cartoon Archive (Reference number: 84983, Published by: The Guardian, with thanks to Copyright holder: Janet Slee): https://archive.cartoons.ac.uk/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=84983

Perseverance and Public Health: creating a cultural shift takes time

Guest post by Susan Jones, Research Associate, Teesside University

I spoke to a young woman the other day who had moved to North East England recently. She already had a little boy, just coming up 2 years old, and was now well on in her next pregnancy. Because I had been involved in evaluating babyClear© - an intervention to help support expectant mothers to stop smoking - I asked her whether the midwives had enquired if she smoked, (she doesn’t). “Oh yes”, she said, “they’re much more into keeping a close eye on you here”, as compared with the region where she lived before.

This buy-in by maternity staff, and the change to practice, is reflected in our paper, recently published in BMC Health Services Research (Jones et al., 2019)[1], in those Trusts that facilitated the intervention most successfully.

It is crucial, yet difficult, to answer questions about the effectiveness of initiatives like these. It takes time and perseverance t
o identify the questions, conduct the research and bring in the system and practice changes, which in turn support behaviour change in patients.

How do we go about answering questions about effectiveness of interventions designed to support people to change their behaviour and to become healthier?

It was in 2012, that the findings from interviews with midwives were first published (Beenstock et al., 2012)[2] and the search for new ways of embedding National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Public Health Guidance 26 (2010)[3] more thoroughly, began. As a result, babyClear© was initially implemented across North East England from 2013 to 2015.

Fundamentally, interventions like babyClear© can be shown to be effective in certain circumstances (NICE, 2010; Bell et al., 2018)[4] but our latest paper found that these changes required specific contexts and cultures in the implementing organisation to maximise their effectiveness and potentially their sustainability and transferability.

These changes in staff practice and patient behaviour do not happen in isolation; the external context is important too and, in this case, the national context has become increasingly supportive.

For example, there have been a number of new pieces of legislation, guidance and reports during this time, all pushing in the same direction:

• Saving babies’ lives: reducing stillbirth and neonatal death: a care bundle (NHS England, O'Connor and Gould, 2014)[5]
• Tobacco Control Plan: Delivery Plan 2017 - 2022 (Department of Health and Social Care, 2018)[6]
• Hiding in Plain Sight; treating tobacco dependency in the NHS (Royal College of Physicians and Tobacco Advisory Group, 2018)[7]
• Not to mention ongoing lobbying from the Challenge Group (2018)[8], a coalition of likeminded, stop smoking, activist organisations, with their ‘Review of the Challenge’.

Clearly, there is an appetite to find solutions to the health problems that smoking causes; however, imposing regulation, without understanding and dealing with the causes, is never going to be hugely effective in a democracy like ours.

So what we see is a lot of different ‘scatter gun’ approaches all dedicated to the same aim – typical of lots of health and social interventions – but is this the best approach?

It is being recognised more and more that intervening in complex systems, such as the NHS, is both necessary and – at the same time – problematic. Largely, the problems come from a lack of understanding of the multiple complexities of the contexts and the effect of cultures upon outcomes. New ways of combining research methods are required to investigate these complex systems and find appropriate answers (Moore et al., 2014)[9]. Updated guidance from the Medical Research Council on evaluating complex interventions is being drafted as I write.

Fuse Complex Systems research programme

Only when the links – or active ingredients – between the different elements of an intervention are identified, and proper attention is given to the contexts and cultures surrounding it, will we be able to understand the necessary environment and resources for it to thrive, ensure its sustainability and maximise outcomes.

Our paper is one step in this direction but there is much more to do. Fuse has a Complex Systems research programme, because the researchers know how important it is. They will soon be publishing their plans for the future direction of their research on this topic.

This is an area where research and evaluation are moving fast, as they attempt to get to grips with the way health and public health are changing in the lives of staff and patients.

References: 

1. Jones, S. et al. (2019) What helped and hindered implementation of an intervention package to reduce smoking in pregnancy: process evaluation guided by normalization process theory. BMC Health Services Research. Available at: https://rdcu.be/bA4fK (Accessed: 20th May 2019).
2. Beenstock, J. et al. (2012) 'What helps and hinders midwives in engaging with pregnant women about stopping smoking? A cross-sectional survey of perceived implementation difficulties among midwives in the North East of England', Implementation Science, 7(1), p 1. 
3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2010) Public health guidance 26: Quitting smoking in pregnancy and following childbirth. London: NICE. 
4. Bell, R. et al. (2018) Evaluation of a complex healthcare intervention to increase smoking cessation in pregnant women: interrupted time series analysis with economic evaluation. Tobacco Control. Available at: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2017/02/10/tobaccocontrol-2016-053476 (Accessed: 20th May 2019). 
5. NHS England, O'Connor, D. and Gould, D. (2014) Saving Babies Lives: reducing stillbirth and neonatal death: a care bundle. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/saving-babies-lives-car-bundl.pdf (Accessed: 10th April 2019). 
6. Department of Health and Social Care (2018) Tobacco Control Plan: Delivery Plan 2017 - 2022. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714365/tobacco-control-delivery-plan-2017-to-2022.pdf (Accessed: 20th May 2019). 
7. Royal College of Physicians and Tobacco Advisory Group (2018) Hiding in plain sight: Treating tobacco dependency in the NHS. Available at: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/hiding-plain-sight-treating-tobacco-dependency-nhs (Accessed: 11th April 2019). 
8. Challenge Group (2018) Review of the challenge 2018. Available at: http://ash.org.uk/information-and-resources/reports-submissions/reports/smoking-in-pregnancy-challenge-group-review-of-the-challenge-2018/ (Accessed: 10th April 2019). 
9. Moore, G. et al. (2014) Process evaluation of complex interventions: UK Medical Research Council. Available at: https://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/mrc-phsrn-process-evaluation-guidance-final/ (Accessed: 10th April 2019).

Image:

1. 'Smoking when pregnant' by johndavison883 via Flickr. Public Domain Mark 1.0.

Making the rural a bit more idyllic

Guest post by Christina Dobson, Research Associate, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University

Ah, the countryside. The home of all that is natural and healthy, the epitome of the ‘good life’. Where you can stroll down the lane to collect fresh eggs or veggies from your neighbour, simply dropping your money in the honesty box left at the end of their drive. I grew up in a rural area, and still live in one now. I love that I only have to walk (more like dawdle - I have a very curious and distractible three year old!) for 10 minutes (five minutes without said three year old) from my front door and I am in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park.

And it seems that living in a rural area could actually be good for you in a number of ways. You are likely to be more satisfied with your life, experience better health overall, and live an average of two years longer than people in urban areas. Maybe it’s the un-polluted air, the connection between land and food, the sense of belonging and community? Or maybe that is just a myth, sold to us all through Postman Pat?

Because, actually, living amidst the beautiful rolling hills may not be so good for you if you develop cancer. In fact, it may even put you at greater risk of developing certain cancers and make you less likely to survive your cancer. With roughly 20% of the population of England living in a rural area, this poses a serious public health problem.

However, we don’t really know why rural patients are facing poorer survival rates than urban patients. One of the strongest factors is that cancer is often diagnosed at a more advanced stage in rural patients, limiting the treatment options available to them. We know that delays in diagnosis are strongly linked to advanced stage cancers, and, as such, encouraging early diagnosis has been central to UK cancer policy for over a decade.

When we begin to think about where diagnostic delays may be occurring for rural patients, it seems that they are investigated and diagnosed just as quickly as urban patients, after referral to hospital for specialist assessment. It follows then that there may be problems prior to referral to hospital that are slowing down rural cancer patients’ diagnoses, either in the way patients respond to symptoms, or the way they are managed in primary care.

Thanks to funding from Yorkshire Cancer Research, and alongside colleagues from Aberdeen and Glasgow, we are starting to look for answers to some of these questions. This study will involve interviewing people in rural Yorkshire to understand their experiences of bowel cancer symptoms and decisions around if, how, and when to seek help about them. The findings from these interviews will be used to work with local communities to think about what interventions we may be able to design to encourage people in rural areas to present to their GP and, hopefully, increase the likelihood that their cancer is diagnosed at an earlier stage and that they will survive.

It is an exciting study, as there is so little known about symptom experiences in rural populations, with lots of issues to explore. For instance, availability and regularity of public transport, provision of health care services in rural areas, hidden poverty, cultural beliefs and experiences of ill health and employment, to name but a few. And then there’s the messy complexity of defining the ‘rural’, or maybe we should be looking to instead describe the multitudes of ‘rurals’? Plenty to keep me busy!

With the arrival of National Bowel Cancer Awareness Month it’s been valuable to reflect on the importance of this study and the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Understanding some of the barriers to timely presentation that exist for rural populations, and devising ways to overcome them is our challenge for the next two years, and beyond. Maybe, longer term, we can help to make the ‘rural’ a bit more idyllic.

Food as a job, life and research: the many meanings of what we eat

Posted by Amelia Lake, dietitian and public health nutritionist & Fuse Lecturer in Knowledge Exchange in Public Health, Durham University

Food is my job. As an academic dietitian and public health nutritionist I spend my time questioning why people eat what they eat, and thinking about what we can do to change behaviours. As a mum, I also spend a lot of time at home wondering why a 4-year-old and a 17-month-old eat what they eat!

Its nutrition and hydration week, which aims to highlight, promote and celebrate improvements in the provision of nutrition and hydration locally, nationally and globally. So this is an excellent opportunity to explore the many roles of food in public health.

Top shelf material

Food is life. We need nutrition and hydration for life and to maintain health.

Food is a thread that moves through every aspect of our life from the everyday to the special occasion.

I read somewhere that the origin of culture was when raw ingredients were cooked. The importance of this event was not so much in how food was prepared but in the organisation of individuals around meals and meal times.

Food has shifted populations and started wars; think of the thirst for sugar, tea and coffee (also known as the ‘hot drinks revolution of the eighteenth century’) and the impact that had on various countries and their populations.

Food is our culture and identity; it is an intrinsic description of who we are and where we come from. For example, I am a complex mixture of Persian dishes, Indonesian dishes and some Northern Irish wheaten bread and Tayto crisps.

Food is our comfort. That dish your mother made, it’s a warm familiar blanket; it evokes memories, both good and bad. It is a way in which we show others that we care for them and are thinking of them.

The party bag horde - a focal point for arguments

Food is a focal point for arguments: “No you can’t have any more sweets from the party bag…” A conversation every parent has at one point or another.

Our social media feeds provide us with ‘food porn’, hands that whizz up magical results in seconds. Additionally, social media and the press provide us with self-styled food and nutrition 'experts' presenting us with spiralised courgette and clean eating advice.

Food continues to dominate our life and the public health agenda on a global scale.

The World Health Organization’s global targets for 2025 to improve maternal, infant and young child nutrition tackle a range of issues from obesity to stunting and wasting.

In this country we are familiar with the concept of our obesogenic environment; an environment in which calories are easily accessible and available and with little opportunity to expend that energy. In an attempt to tackle the obesity problem in this country our government will follow Mexico and introduce a sugar levy.

Despite the issues of over-nutrition and the seemingly endless opportunity to buy food, food poverty is a term we have become more familiar with. Despite it sounding like it belongs to another era, it’s a very real issue for a significant proportion of our population. Oxfam estimates that 500,000 people in the UK are now reliant on food parcels. Foodbanks provide nutrition to those who struggle to feed themselves and their families and have sadly experienced rapid growth in recent years, especially in the UK.

How can research help to address these global and local problems?

Free fruit with every purchase

Within Fuse ‘food’ runs through a number of research themes, from behaviour change to healthy ageing. As part of the national School for Public Health Research, a team of Fuse researchers has evaluated a food training programme run by Redcar and Cleveland Council. To promote the findings from this research we decided to create a short film and this week were filming in a small sandwich shop in the market town of Guisborough, where you were offered a free piece of fruit with every purchase. This small business owner’s focus is food. She provides food to customers every lunch time. This owner had attended the training course run by the Council and decided to make a difference by providing more healthy food.

This is an important step, supported by research. On this nutrition and hydration week, I am sure you will agree that there is still much to be done on this important and vast topic across many disciplines and on a global scale.