Changing the narrative on gambling harms in the North East

Posted by Dr Andrew Richardson - Research Associate (Gambling Harms), Newcastle University; Alice Beadle, Public Health Specialist - Gambling Harms, Middlesbrough Council; and Laura Sheridan, Public Health Officer – Gambling Harms, Middlesbrough Council

Gambling is staking money, or something of value, on the outcome of something involving chance. Gambling activities can include arcades, esports and video games, betting shops, online betting, gaming machines, lotteries, bingo, casinos and other common types of gambling. Gambling harms affect thousands of people across England but the North East faces the greatest risk. National estimates suggest that 3.8% of people are at elevated risk from gambling. In the North East, that figure rises to nearly 5% of people aged 16 and over - the highest rate of at-risk gambling in the country. These people experience a range of negative consequences, from financial hardship to serious mental health challenges.

To explore the scale and impact of gambling harms in the region, read the Regional Health Needs Assessment for Gambling.

What are gambling harms?

Gambling harms are any negative consequence or side effect experienced because of gambling. They may be felt by the person who is gambling or may be experienced by those close to them, such as a family member, friend or colleague, known as ‘affected others’. For each person who experiences gambling harm, on average six others are affected - often partners and children.

Whilst anyone can be harmed by gambling, it does not affect everyone equally. The harms from gambling are varied and may also be interconnected. They include:

• Increased stress and poor mental health (such as anxiety, depression and suicide risk).
• Financial hardship, debt, asset loss and bankruptcy.
• Relationship breakdowns due to increased conflict, issues with trust and stress associated with harmful gambling. There are also links between gambling and domestic violence.
• Reduced performance and absenteeism in education and in the workplace.
• Stigma and shame associated with gambling behaviour.
• Threatening behaviour, damage to property, fraud and theft.

For many, gambling harms leave a legacy and may be experienced for many years after the event.

A public health approach

The Association of Directors of Public Health in the North East (ADPH NE) Gambling Harms Programme aims to tackle the harm caused by gambling in the North East with a coordinated regional approach. The Programme received funding that originally came from a gambling operators’ penalty but was redirected by the Gambling Commission - called a ‘regulatory settlement’.

Gambling harms are complex, and prevention approaches need to move away from ‘personal responsibility’ to population-wide social, economic and environmental interventions. Messaging from the gambling industry often sets the narrative by placing responsibility onto the individual to address harmful gambling, despite the many ways gambling products are designed to be addictive. This can lead to increased stigma and shame and create additional barriers to help-seeking behaviour.

The Regional Office, a team hosted by Middlesbrough Council, supports the 12 Local Authorities in the North East to pilot prevention approaches to help reduce gambling harms. The Programme has developed resources which include awareness raising materials and evidence summaries to support practitioners in local authority settings.

Eight key priority areas have been established under the Regional Office:

1. Support and Partnerships – Responding to requests from local authorities and wider stakeholders to support understanding of gambling harms and embed prevention activity.

2. Advocacy – Contributing to the shaping of policy at a local, regional and national level by promoting a public health approach to support those impacted by gambling harms and to build an environment that prevents future harm.

3. Media, Communications and Education – Raising awareness of gambling harms and aiming to reduce stigma.

4. Treatment – Promoting regional treatment services and referral routes for residents and professionals across the North East of England.

5. Data, Research and Evaluation – Develop and create evidence bespoke to the North East and contribute literature to the national evidence base regarding gambling harms.

6. Licensing – Supporting planning and licensing colleagues to create environments that prevent future gambling harms.

7. Protecting Young People – Recognising the risks of gambling to children and young people, and developing resources to support caregivers to reduce risks of gambling harms.

8. Lived Experience – Co-producing all outputs with the Lived Experience Forum, made up of members from across the Region. This ensures all outputs reflect real-world experiences and have maximum impact.

To learn more about gambling and gambling harms, please use the ADPH NE Gambling Harms slide deck or access free Making Every Contact Count (MECC) and Gambling Harms training here.

You may also be interested in these national resources:

• Local Government Association (LGA): Tackling gambling related harm: A whole council approach.
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Gambling-related Harms: Identification, Assessment and Management.
• OHID Gambling treatment and support in England: main findings and methodology.
• Gambling Commission Young People and Gambling report.

Learning from others

The North East Programme was inspired by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and ADPH Yorkshire and the Humber to share findings and best practice. The three regional programmes collaborated on a Language Guide to promote language choices that reduces the stigma associated with gambling.

Building the evidence

The Programme will be evaluated and this will contribute to the evidence base on actions to reduce gambling harms, which is currently dominated by gambling industry narratives. The team is working with local partners to explore the wide range of healthcare services and practitioners who may be in contact with gamblers or people affected by gambling and educational toolkits for schools and communities etc. To learn more, see this academic paper co-authored by Fuse researchers or view a free slide deck that summarises the latest research on gambling harms.

Lived experience

The Programme also facilitates a Lived Experience Forum to help shape work happening across the region. If you have experienced gambling harms, either directly or as an ‘affected other’ and are based in or from the North East, this is open to you. If you would like to influence the work being done to tackle gambling harms in the region, please email GHR@middlesbrough.gov.uk.

Stay in the loop

The ADPH NE Gambling Harms newsletter includes news about events, new research, resources like podcasts and documentaries, and ways to get involved. Join the newsletter mailing list by contacting GHR@middlesbrough.gov.uk or complete the sign-up form here. New resources can also be found on the ADPH NE Gambling Harms website.

Treatment and support

Visit the Gambling Harms MECC page to find treatment, support and blocking tools. For some people in recovery from gambling harms, treatment may be the best option, whereas peer support groups may be better for others. Professionals can refer directly into these services. This may make it easier for those needing treatment and support to take the first step on their recovery journey.

Photo by Michele Lana on Unsplash

This time the hare might win: dark kitchens and the regulatory race

Posted by Helen Moore, Associate Professor (Research) & Fuse Associate, Teesside University 

Do you remember the fable of the tortoise and the hare? The one where the overconfident hare sprints ahead, but takes a nap, and lets the slow but steady tortoise win the race? Well, in today’s digital economy, that story’s getting a reboot, but this time, the hare isn’t napping.

In the world of food delivery and online ordering, the hare (the digital entrepreneurs) is wide awake and developing food purchasing opportunities at an incredible speed. Online delivery outlets, often functioning as dark kitchens, are agile, tech-savvy, and unburdened by the red tape of traditional business models. They’re using popular, well-known apps to reach huge numbers of people, launching new brands overnight, flooding menus with similar, but subtly different options and delivering meals faster than regulators can say “planning permission.” Low overheads, high levels of flexibility and choice have meant that rates of online food ordering are increasing, with the covid-19 pandemic accelerating this phenomenon.

Meanwhile, the tortoise (well-meaning but less agile local and national government) is still trying to understand the race in which it has been entered. Regulators are struggling to keep pace with a food industry that’s evolving in real time while the professionals working in local authorities hit ‘speed bumps’ which include outdated planning laws and limited evidence. For example, there is no clear use classification for dark kitchens, and some councils treat them as “industrial”, others as “sui generis” (unique), and there is inconsistent enforcement between local authorities. While some local authorities have implemented restrictions on takeaways opening close to schools, online food ordering apps mean that food can be delivered from places outside of the restricted areas. In addition, due to limitations with the recording of food outlet data, policymakers also find it hard to track spread or assess impact of dark kitchens which contribute significantly to this industry.

While innovation races ahead, regulation is not keeping pace, raising questions about public health, urban planning, and fairness. This isn’t just a story of speed, it’s also a story of systems, and unless the tortoise finds ways to modernise the traditional policy cycles to become proactive rather than reactive, and to reduce potential loopholes, the hare might just win this one, particularly as consumers like convenience and variety, which online ordering offers in abundance.

So, what can be done?

National and local authorities need to rethink how they engage with fast-moving digital industries - not to stifle innovation, but to ensure it serves the public good. We need clear national guidance on planning classifications, and health-focused planning laws that include digital-only food outlets. It isn’t all bad news though, there are some signs of progress with local authorities beginning to enforce planning permission requirements and with funded research projects examining various aspects of dark kitchens.

Free online training

To support local authorities and communities in using the planning system to promote healthier diets and reduce obesity, we have launched a new, free e-learning course called Planning for a Healthier Food Environment. The course was developed through a collaborative effort between Fuse (the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), academic experts from Teesside University and Newcastle University, and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID).

This one-hour online Fuse Research Event, held on 23 September, introduced the wider policy and planning context for the course, provided insights into its cross-disciplinary development, and outlined how the resource can be applied in practice to support healthier, more equitable environments.

Photo by Roman on Unsplash

Not just what’s on the menu - the hidden forces behind food choice

Posted by Helen Moore, Associate Professor (Research) & Fuse Associate, Teesside University 

On Saturday, I had one of those incredibly energising moments that remind you why you do the work you do. I was invited to present at the Right To Food UK Conference at the University of Westminster. It was a powerful event led by Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby. The event represented a crucial moment for shaping policy and driving action to realise the right to food in the UK. The room was full of policymakers, researchers, and advocates, all engaged and working together talking about the issues.

So proud to open the UK’s first national Right To Food conference today. No one should be going hungry in the world’s 6th wealthiest nation - hunger is a political choice & it can be solved, so that’s what we want to do: End hunger. #RightToFood #HungerIsAPoliticalChoice pic.twitter.com/p7IdeoeyQT

— lan Byrne MP (@IanByrneMP) September 13, 2025

Fuse Associate Helen Moore pictured third from the left

The invitation to speak followed my attendance at the launch of the Hungry for Change report by the Child of the North All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) earlier in July. It’s been a privilege to be part of this journey, co-authoring the Environments chapter with Andrea Burrows, Amelia Lake and Claire O'Malley from Teesside University and Fuse (the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health), and Mark Green and Emma Boyland from the University of Liverpool.

Our chapter of the report looks at how the places and systems around us shape what we eat, often without us even realising it. We looked at everything from fast food outlets to social supermarkets, to advertising, to digital delivery platforms and planning policy. The big takeaway message? Food environments matter. And crucially they’re not the same for everyone.

So, what’s a food environment?

It’s not just about what’s in your fridge. It’s about what’s available in your local shop, what’s advertised to you on billboards and on your phone or computer screen, what your school or work canteen serves, how far you live from a supermarket, and even what your friends and family eat. It’s shaped by everything from planning and transport networks to cultural norms, pricing strategies, and national policies. Have you ever wondered why your local shops have two pizza places but no greengrocer? That’s a food environment in action. It is shaped by planning decisions, business models, and economic pressures, not just personal choice.

And here’s the kicker: these environments aren’t the same for everyone... If you live in a more deprived area, you’re more likely to be surrounded by cheap, high-calorie options, adverts for these types of foods and are less likely to have access to fresh, affordable food. That’s not a personal failing; it’s structural inequality.

What did our chapter of the report say?

Advertising
We explored how advertising aimed at children overwhelmingly promotes unhealthy foods. Even short exposure to adverts for fast food or sugary drinks can increase kids’ energy intake and influence their choices. And children in more deprived households tend to watch more commercial screen media, making them more vulnerable to this kind of marketing.

Community Food Organisations
We also discussed community food organisations, which are an innovative and alternative food relief model to food banks. They exist to try and tackle both food insecurity and food waste simultaneously. They utilise surplus from mainstream food retailers and sell via the usual supermarket format (adding items to a basket and paying at a checkout) but at greatly reduced prices. With lower costs than a traditional supermarket, and less stigmatising than using free emergency food aid, this model shows promise. Some of these organisations operate beyond a supermarket model, and offer additional social support, such as employment training, guidance with benefit claims, or community-building activities, but this differs across organisations. While these differences demonstrate the adaptability of the model, it also makes it difficult to establish a universal definition of community food organisations.

Fast food, screens, and the rise of dark kitchens
One of the most striking findings of our chapter was the increase in fast food outlet accessibility in the North, with an 84% rise in people living within 1km of a fast-food outlet between 2016 and 2025. However, we now must consider that access to food, including fast food, has moved to the digital space. We’re seeing a shift from people going to their local fast-food outlet to order, to using technology on a variety of screens to order food. In a recent piece of work, we found that one business (a delivery only kitchen, also known as a dark kitchen) could appear as eight different restaurant options on a food delivery app. What looks like more options for consumers, means more visibility for businesses, but all the food will be coming from the same place. It’s clever marketing, but it also widens the gap between consumers and the food they’re eating.

So, is this a problem?

I think it is something that needs looking at, particularly as another aspect of this is that planning regulations as they currently stand, (like preventing takeaways from opening near schools) don’t really apply to these virtual kitchens. They can deliver further, run more cheaply, and bypass traditional oversight. It’s a whole new frontier (this digital food environment), and one we urgently need to understand better.

Why does this matter?

At the conference on Saturday, I had the chance to present some of our report findings and speak directly with people who were interested in making changes in this area and improving food access for all. Seeing their genuine interest, being able to answer questions and provide context, was incredibly rewarding. These are the moments that remind me why this work matters, not just in theory, but in practice.

We need to stop thinking of food environments as neutral. They’re shaped by policy, economics, advertising, culture, marketing and technology. Food environments have been shaped and moulded to encourage us to eat less healthy food. The good news is that they can be reshaped. That means investing in healthier options, regulating advertising and marketing, supporting community food initiatives, and making sure digital platforms don’t become the new food deserts and swamps.

Food is more than just fuel. It’s about dignity, culture, and care. And we all deserve a food environment that supports our health and potential no matter where we’re born. To borrow a line from the report’s foreword: “Food insecurity is not about poor choices – it is about a lack of choices.”

Everyone deserves access to good food. Whether you're a policymaker, a researcher, or someone who just wants better options in your community, there’s a role for you in reshaping the food environment.


🔗 Read the full report here - Hungry for Change: Tackling Obesity and Food Insecurity in the North of England

What did you eat yesterday? The messy science of measuring what we eat

Posted by Dr Kath Roberts, Senior Lecturer in Public Health Nutrition, University of York

Ask anyone what they ate yesterday and you’ll likely get a pause, a guess, and maybe a laugh. That’s the reality nutritional epidemiologists (scientists who study how diet affects people’s health) work with every day. Measuring what people eat sounds straightforward but is surprisingly complex. And yet, understanding dietary intake is central to advancing nutrition science, improving public health, and shaping government dietary guidelines.

Increasingly, attention is turning not just to what people eat, but how well they eat overall. The concept of diet quality, looking at the overall balance, variety, and healthfulness of the diet has become a cornerstone of nutrition research. It also offers a way to bring together fragmented messages about nutrients, food groups, ultra-processed foods and national guidelines into one meaningful measure. But defining and measuring diet quality is just as tricky as tracking individual foods.

This blog reflects on the practical and scientific challenges of defining, collecting, analysing and interpreting dietary data and reflects on how improvements in methods and technology are shaping the future of dietary data.

Why measuring diet is so difficult

Capturing dietary intake data involves a tangle of practical and methodological problems. First, there’s the human element. People often don’t remember exactly what they ate or may selectively forget. This recall bias is especially tricky with foods eaten on the go or in small amounts. Then there’s social desirability bias. People want to give the “right” answers, especially if being questioned by an actual human (as opposed to filling out a diary or survey). So while a few honest folk might confess to having a chocolate bar for breakfast and a midweek takeaway, many prefer to report kale and quinoa - or at least a committed adherence to the holy ‘five-a-day’ grail. The result? A gap between what people say they eat and reality.

Then there’s the issue of burden. Some methods, like weighed food diaries, ask a lot of participants. Accurately weighing and logging every bite is time-consuming and often tedious. It may even change behaviour just to make recording easier. My own experience some years ago with logging foods through a free and widely used app was that it made me lean towards buying and consuming processed foods that I could just scan the barcode of, rather than cooking from scratch or shoving whatever was in the fridge onto a plate as I usually would. Other methods like food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and 24-hour recalls try to reduce this burden but come with their own compromises.

Tools of the trade: strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs

FFQs remain popular in large epidemiological studies because they’re cost-effective and can capture habitual intake over time. However, they rely on memory and a fixed list of foods that might not reflect cultural or personal variation, only capturing, by design, data on what they ask about. 24-hour recalls offer more flexibility and less reliance on long-term memory, especially when conducted with structured prompts like the USDA's multiple-pass method. But they only capture a snapshot in time and one day rarely reflects the whole story. Diaries, whether weighed or estimated, provide rich detail but at a cost. They demand motivation, literacy, and a willingness to record every meal, snack, and nibble without altering usual habits.

Brief screeners, like the US Healthy Eating Index or dietary diversity scores, offer pragmatic options for surveys or interventions. They’re easier to administer and analyse, but they tend to gloss over the nuance of full dietary patterns. And they still face questions of sensitivity and specificity - are they really measuring what matters most for health?

So what is a healthy diet anyway?

Amidst the tangle of dietary data collection challenges, there is the important question of ‘what is a healthy diet’? This is where the idea of diet quality comes in. Rather than counting single nutrients or fixating on particular foods or food groups, diet quality looks at the whole picture: how balanced, varied, and aligned with health guidelines someone’s overall eating pattern is. It’s become a cornerstone of nutrition science and epidemiology, but it’s surprisingly hard to pin down and turn into a clear, usable measure for research.

This also matters for public health messaging. People are bombarded with a range of different messages. We have the NHS Eatwell Guide, the High Fat Salt Sugar (HFSS) advertising restrictions, front-of-pack nutrition labelling, SACN Dietary Reference Values, rising concerns about ‘ultra-processed foods’ - and these don’t always line up. Each of these frameworks is based on different criteria and assumptions; food-based, nutrient-based, processing-based - which can send mixed messages and make public health advice feel inconsistent or overwhelming. Without a consistent definition of what a ‘healthy diet’ looks like, it’s easy to get confused.

That’s why the idea of diet quality is so powerful: it can provide a coherent construct that integrates these strands and translates complex nutritional science into something more intuitive and holistic. But the reality of defining and measuring diet quality is messy. Efforts like the UK-DQQ show promise, offering a simple, food-based screener aligned with national guidance, derived from empirical dietary patterns and validated against both biomarkers (e.g. blood and urine) and nutrient intakes. But even this needs updating as dietary trends evolve and must be validated in diverse population groups.

The trouble with comparing apples to oranges (or diet scores to diet scores)

No universal agreement on how to define a ‘healthy diet’ contributes to variation between studies, making it hard to compare results or synthesise evidence. Some researchers focus on diet quality scores (like HEI), others on dietary diversity, others on adherence to national guidelines or cultural patterns like the Mediterranean diet. These varied definitions mean that two studies can report on ‘diet quality’ but be talking about quite different things.

The Mediterranean Diet Index and its adaptations, such as the relative Mediterranean Diet Score or alternate Mediterranean Diet Score, are widely used in Europe. These scores capture core elements of Mediterranean dietary patterns: a lot of vegetables, pulses, fruits, nuts, olive oil and fish; moderate alcohol drinking; and low amount of red meat and dairy. In countries like Spain, Italy and Greece, these tools have helped characterise regional diets and assess traditional dietary patterns in relation to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and overall death rate.

European examples such as the EPIC cohort (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) show how differing dietary patterns and assessment methods between countries can complicate analyses. EPIC responded by conducting extra studies to adjust for differences in how diets were measured across countries.

The cost of precision

Gold-standard methods like weighed food diaries or duplicate meals offer unmatched detail, but they’re expensive, burdensome, and often impractical for large groups. Even with trained coders and food composition databases, analysis is slow and complex. Participants may forget to record, misestimate, or change how they eat.

And food diaries only capture a few days raising the question: are those days typical? People might eat differently on weekends, holidays, or when they’re sick. So we need multiple days, and sometimes biomarkers or repeat measures, to estimate what is usual. That’s time and resource intensive. And even then, we must account for people who report eating less than they actually do.

In the UK, the National Diet and Nutrition Survey switched from 7-day weighed diaries to 4-day estimated ones, to computerised 24 hour recall methods. These changes reflect the challenge of balancing accuracy, rigour, realism and resource constraints.

From challenge to opportunity: smarter tools, better insight

The good news? We’re getting better. Digital tools like Intake24, MyFood24 and ASA24 allow self-administered, online 24 hour recalls with built-in prompts, portion images, and food databases. These tools reduce burden and standardise data collection. AI is also being explored for recognising foods from images, helping reduce reliance on memory and self-reporting.

Dietary pattern analysis is also on the rise. Rather than fixating on individual nutrients, researchers are looking at how foods cluster together using tools like principal component analysis. These approaches acknowledge that we eat meals, not molecules and that whole-diet patterns may offer a more stable and interpretable link to people’s health.

What now?

Dietary data collection isn’t perfect and may never be. But it’s getting better. By balancing scientific rigour with practical constraints, and by using emerging technologies and analytic strategies, researchers can produce meaningful insights. Whether it’s via smarter recalls, better biomarkers, or dietary pattern-based analysis, the goal is the same: to understand how what we eat affects our health and how we live. That journey starts with listening carefully, thoughtfully, and with an appreciation for just how tricky it is to answer the simple question: “What did you eat yesterday?”

So the next time you try to recall what you ate yesterday, remember you're not alone - even science is still figuring it out!

“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.

This isn’t just about food. It’s about fairness, dignity, and giving communities the tools they need to support themselves

Why Community Food Organisations deserve a place in the Child of the North APPG report

Posted by Andrea Burrows, Dr Claire O’Malley, Dr Helen Moore and Professor Amelia Lake, Fuse researchers from Teesside University

Andrea Burrows, Helen Moore with other contributors at the launch of the report in parliament

Across the North of England, families are facing a dual crisis: rising food insecurity and growing food waste. In response, Community Food Organisations (CFOs) - like social supermarkets and pantries - are stepping up in powerful, community led ways. These aren’t just places to get food. They’re places of dignity, connection, and hope.

But despite their growing role, CFOs are still flying under the radar. They’re under-researched, inconsistently defined, and often left out of the bigger policy picture. That’s why they were included in the Child of the North APPG report.

What is the Child of the North APPG?

The Child of the North All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) is a cross-party group of MPs, peers, researchers, and practitioners working together to tackle the deep-rooted inequalities affecting children in the North of England. From poverty and poor health to educational disadvantage, the APPG is committed to finding evidence-based solutions that give every child a fair start in life.

Backed by research from the Northern Health Science Alliance (NHSA), Health Equity North and the N8 Research Partnership, the APPG has already produced influential reports on the cost of living, education, and health. Now, it’s time to shine a light on food, and the role CFOs can play in transforming communities and the lives of children.

A different kind of food support

Unlike traditional food banks, CFOs operate more like supermarkets, offering surplus food at low prices. Often delivered in a familiar, retail-style setting, this model not only reduces food waste but also gives people choice and dignity in how they access food. It’s a far cry from the stigma that can come with emergency food aid.

Research shows that this approach better meets the needs of people experiencing food insecurity. It empowers them, rather than making them feel like recipients of charity.

One model, many faces

CFOs are incredibly diverse. Some are membership-based and serve specific groups; others are open to all. Some offer wraparound support like job training or help with household income; others focus purely on food. This flexibility is a strength, it not only allows CFOs to adapt to local needs, but it also makes it hard to evaluate their impact or share what works best.

"Community Food Organisations... aren’t just places to get food. They're places of dignity, connection, and hope."

A recent review led by by colleague Claire O'Malley (currently under review) found that there’s no single definition of a social supermarket. And many operate informally, relying on local relationships and community goodwill to source food. This makes them agile, but also vulnerable.

Why now?

Since the pandemic, food insecurity has increased, especially in the North. But so too has the rise of CFOs. In the North East and North Cumbria, there are now 67 social supermarkets. In the North East town of Middlesbrough alone, the number of Eco Shops, the dominant social supermarket model, has jumped from nine in 2021 to 28 in 2025.

This growth shows just how much communities value these spaces. But it also raises urgent questions:

• How can we make these models sustainable?
• What support do they need to thrive?
• How do they fit into the bigger picture of public health and food policy?

Why the Child of the North report matters

Including CFOs in the report will:

• Raise national awareness of their role and potential.
• Create shared definitions and standards to help evaluate impact.
• Highlight best practices and support scaling of successful models.
• Ensure CFOs are recognised as part of the wider food and health system - not just a stopgap.

This isn’t just about food. It’s about fairness, dignity, and giving communities the tools they need to support themselves. CFOs are already making a difference. With the right recognition and support, they could transform community support with accessible, socially accessible methods of community aid.

About the authors:

Andrea Burrows is a Research Associate at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Dr Claire O'Malley is a Research Associate at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Helen Moore is an Associate Professor at Teesside University and a Fuse Associate member

Amelia Lake is Professor of Public Health Nutrition at Teesside University, Deputy Director of Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a dietitian and public health nutritionist.

"We cannot afford to wait" - a call to prioritise support for people living with severe mental ill-health

Posted by Dan Steward, Research Assistant at Newcastle University, and the WHOLE-SMI Community Advisory Group and research team, for Mental Health Awareness Week

Fuse colleagues advocating the words of public contributors in mental health research

People living with severe mental ill-health (SMI) often face profound inequalities in both their physical and mental health - and the systems designed to support them are not always equipped to meet their complex needs. That is why we launched WHOLE-SMI (Wellbeing and HOListic health promotion for people with Severe Mental Illness), a programme of research led by Fuse researchers at Newcastle University, focused on understanding how services can better support the whole health of people living with SMI.

Our work set out to answer a vital question: How can we use the resources we already have to do more for those who need it most?

To find out, we engaged with a wide range of voices across the North of England: people with lived experience of SMI, those who commission services, GPs, and frontline staff. We wanted to understand what support is currently available, what the biggest challenges are in accessing it, and how services could be improved. This collaborative approach gave us deep insights into what is working and where real change is urgently needed.

At the heart of our project was a community advisory group made up of individuals with lived experience of SMI. This group worked alongside us from start to finish. They helped shape our questions, guide our focus, and ensure the findings reflected what really matters. Their input was not just advisory - it was transformational.

Together, we identified the most important messages from the research and created clear, compelling headlines to communicate them. We also co-wrote a letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, urging the new government to take immediate action. With the recent announcement that NHS England will be abolished, we believe this moment is critical. There is a unique opportunity to rethink how health services work for people with severe mental ill-health, and we must not let it pass us by.

"We need you to be an advocate for those living with poor mental health and be compassionate and vocal in committing to service improvements." 

                                                          Quote from the letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer

We share our open letter respectfully, but with urgency. Too often, people with SMI are overlooked or underserved. They deserve care that supports all aspects of their health: physical, mental, emotional, and social. We hope this work sparks meaningful dialogue and real change in how services are designed and delivered.

Please read more about the WHOLE-SMI programme and access our findings here.

If you would like to get in touch, please contact Professor Emily Oliver.

Because no one should have to wait for the support they deserve.

Read the full letter below

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------