Prevention by any other name would smell as sweet

Guest post by Tom Embury, Public Affairs Officer, British Dietetic Association

Next week, June 4th - 8th is Dietitians Week 2018, where the British Dietetic Association and its members and allies celebrate the work of dietitians. This year’s theme is “Dietitians Do Prevention”, which intends to highlight the important role that dietitians have to play in prevention and public health. We know nutrition and hydration underpin so much of our health and getting it right can reduce the impact of illness, aid recovery, or prevent some diseases and conditions altogether.

NHS England’s Five Year Forward View, in the most recent frameworks from NHS Scotland and the Northern Irish Health and Social Care Service and is embodied in the principles of the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act.

It has been made clear by everyone from Marmot to the NHS Confederation that we need to strengthen prevention and that it should be everybody’s business. Despite this, many dietitians (and indeed healthcare staff in general) still don’t think of themselves as doing prevention or public health, especially as so many work in hospital settings, delivering acute care. Our recent 2018 member survey has shown that 40% of our members don’t feel that they do prevention or public health activity. This may be because they don’t have the time or resources, despite wishing to do so, but in some cases, it is because they don’t see public health as part of their remit.

Of course, we believe all our members “do prevention” and public health, but not everyone will call it by that name. Indeed, the term public health often seems to have quite a narrow definition, associated with the work of local government public health teams. This is important work, but by no means is that everything public health entails.

This is why, in preparation for Dietitians Week this year, we asked all our specialist groups for their view on how they do prevention. Our specialist groups cover pretty much all of the areas of dietetics - from paediatrics to older people, public health to critical care. What we found is that there are dozens of words and terms used to describe activity that is essentially a form of prevention.

Some were variations, like primary, secondary or tertiary prevention depending on where you work and what types of illnesses your patients have. Others, such as Making Every Contact Count or Healthy Conversations, relate to specific campaigns or initiatives. In areas like Mental Health or Paediatrics, a whole different language can exist. Even rehabilitation or recovery after acute illness is a form of prevention - preventing future episodes, further hospital visits or complications. One great example comes from Fuse itself – the research carried out into the impact of energy drink intake amongst young people has had an impact on national level policy making.

This is why we are trying to celebrate prevention in all its forms and with all its various names. Dietitians are and should to a greater extent be a core part of the public health workforce.

Our incoming Chairman, Caroline Bovey, highlighted this issue with terminology and understanding at our recent Annual General Meeting. She asked the crowd of over 100 dietitians to raise their hands if they were involved in public health. Some hands went up but they were definitely in the minority. She then asked who had a twitter account where they talked about diet and nutrition – far more hands shot up. “You are all”, she said, “doing public health dietetics”.

So, whether you’re having a healthy conversation or making every contact count, supporting rehabilitation or reducing hospital admissions, celebrate the way that you do prevention. We can’t let the terminology get in the way of sharing best practice or spreading good ideas. We’d love you to tell us about it as part of Dietitians Week! Get in touch via dietitiansweek@bda.uk.com

How industry-funded organisations mislead the public on alcohol & cancer

Guest post by Dr Nason Maani Hessari, Research Fellow, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

When it comes to the risk of cancer associated with alcohol consumption, there is a significant disconnect between scientific evidence and public opinion.

The evidence of the independent link between alcohol consumption and cancer is clear, as emphasised by recent comprehensive reviews by the UK Committee on Carcinogenicity* (Committee on Carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, 2015), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2012). Drinking alcohol can cause a range of cancers, including oral cavity, pharynx (cavity behind the nose and mouth), larynx (voice box), oesophagus (gullet), colorectal (bowel and colon), breast and liver cancer. Furthermore, the risk of developing cancers of the mouth, throat and breast increases with any amount consumed on a regular basis (Department of Health, 2016). However, public awareness of this link remains low, with a 2016 survey reporting only 12.9% of respondents identifying cancer as a potential consequence of drinking too much alcohol (Buykx et al., 2016).

What does this have to do with the alcohol industry? Well, in the UK and many other countries, alcohol-industry funded organisations, called Social Aspects Public Relations Organisations (SAPROs), present themselves as sources of health information to the public, particularly around ‘responsible drinking’, underage drinking and drink driving (Maani Hessari and Petticrew, 2017). These organisations have been criticised for their inherent conflict of interest, as they are linked to large multinational alcohol producers, for whom a large proportion of profits come from harmful drinking (Casswell et al., 2016). The industry has a track record of focusing on education and individual responsibility, while lobbying against population-level measures to reduce alcohol-related harm (Babor and Robaina, 2013), even though these are evidence-based (Burton et al., 2017), and form the basis of the WHO Global Alcohol Strategy, in which alcohol producers participated (World Health Organisation, 2010).

Considering the role of the alcohol industry in providing information to consumers, we decided to examine the extent to which the industry fully and accurately communicated the scientific evidence on alcohol and cancer. To do this, we systematically examined the content of 27 industry-funded organisations or websites. In each case, we analysed how information regarding alcohol and cancer was presented, and whether the statements they made about cancer risk were in agreement with the scientific evidence, as presented in the Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) and IARC reviews.

We found that most alcohol industry SAPROs appeared to misrepresent evidence by denying, distorting or distracting from links to cancer, particularly breast cancer (Petticrew et al., 2017, Petticrew et al., 2018). A full list of examples can be found in our paper and the supplementary information, but as an example of denial, consider this:

“Moderate wine intake may actually reduce the risk of oesophagus, thyroid, lung, kidney and colorectal cancers as well as Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma…Concerning breast cancer, there may also be a protective role for wine.” [Wine Information Council].

When some risk was acknowledged, it was often presented alongside a range of other confounders, thus undermining the evidence that there is an independent relationship. For example:

“Alcohol has been identified as a known human carcinogen by IARC, along with over 1,000 others, including solvents and chemical compounds, certain drugs, viral infection, solar radiation from exposure to sunlight, and processed meat.” [International Alliance for Responsible Drinking]

Or in another instance:

“Not all heavy drinkers get cancer, as multiple risk factors are involved in the development of cancers including genetics and family history of cancer, age, environmental factors, and behavioural variables, as well as social determinants of health.” [Australia: Drinkwise].

It is not clear how the consumer is meant to interpret this information. The use of such descriptions to describe risk of cancer from smoking would in essence be both equally correct, and equally misleading. In fact, this type of language is highly reminiscent of arguments used by the tobacco industry, which emphasise the complex causes of lung cancer and coronary heart disease, in order to help deny the scientific evidence and identify other independent risk factors for smoking-related diseases to deflect focus from their products (Petticrew and Lee, 2011).

Since the publication of our findings (Petticrew et al., 2017, Petticrew et al., 2018), additional examples of alcohol industry representatives openly disputing the link between alcohol and cancer continue to emerge. For example, a recent study in the Yukon, Canada, examining the effects of adding a cancer warning label to alcohol (as one of three potential labelling options) has been suspended due to industry pressure.

Perhaps even more striking: as part of the ongoing debate in Ireland regarding the Public Health Alcohol Bill (PHAB), when a physician noted on live TV that alcohol was a carcinogen, a leading alcohol industry spokesperson countered inaccurately that alcohol was in fact, not a carcinogen, and that there were “…as many studies, medical studies, as there are on the ‘pro’ side…” (clip below).

Dr Ciara Kelly and Patricia Callan clash on Claire Byrne Live pic.twitter.com/KyXqpgnJxj

— RTÉ ClaireByrneLive (@ClaireByrneLive) September 18, 2017

It has been argued that greater public awareness, particularly of the risk of breast cancer, poses a significant threat to the alcohol industry (Connor, 2017). In response to other threats to profits, there is evidence that the industry has attempted to engage in “denialism” (Katikireddi and Hilton, 2015), and it appears this may also be the case for cancer, particularly breast cancer.

Currently, the alcohol industry remains involved in developing alcohol policy in many countries, and in disseminating health information to the public, including school children. Our research findings, which build on existing evidence regarding the activities of SAPROs (Babor and Robaina, 2013, McCambridge et al., 2014, Moodie et al., 2013), should be cause for a re-evaluation of such arrangements. The World Health Organisation has previously stated that ‘In the view of the WHO, the alcohol industry has no role in the formulation of alcohol policies, which must be protected from distortion by commercial or vested interests.’(Chan, 2013). The clear and obvious similarities to tobacco industry tactics that we report, which reflect the inherent conflict of interest, serve as a reminder that policies are but one aspect at risk of industry distortion.


All views expressed are those of the author.


References

BABOR, T. F. & ROBAINA, K. 2013. Public health, academic medicine, and the alcohol industry's corporate social responsibility activities. Am J Public Health, 103, 206-14.

BURTON, R., HENN, C., LAVOIE, D., O'CONNOR, R., PERKINS, C., SWEENEY, K., GREAVES, F., FERGUSON, B., BEYNON, C., BELLONI, A., MUSTO, V., MARSDEN, J. & SHERON, N. 2017. A rapid evidence review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol control policies: an English perspective. Lancet, 389, 1558-1580.

BUYKX, P., LI, J., GAVENS, L., HOOPER, L., LOVATT, M., GOMES DE MATOS, E., MEIER, P. & HOLMES, J. 2016. Public awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer in England in 2015: a population-based survey. BMC Public Health, 16, 1194.

CASSWELL, S., CALLINAN, S., CHAIYASONG, S., CUONG, P. V., KAZANTSEVA, E., BAYANDORJ, T., HUCKLE, T., PARKER, K., RAILTON, R. & WALL, M. 2016. How the alcohol industry relies on harmful use of alcohol and works to protect its profits. Drug Alcohol Rev, 35, 661-664.

CHAN, M. 2013. WHO's response to article on doctors and the alcohol industry. Bmj, 346, f2647.

COMMITTEE ON CARCINOGENICITY OF CHEMICALS IN FOOD, C. P. A. T. E. C. 2015. Statement 2015/S2.

CONNOR, J. 2017. Alcohol consumption as a cause of cancer. Addiction, 112, 222-228.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 2016. UK Chief Medical Officers' Alcohol Guidelines Review - Summary of the proposed new guidelines.

IARC 2012. Personal habits and indoor combustions. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans.

KATIKIREDDI, S. V. & HILTON, S. 2015. How did policy actors use mass media to influence the Scottish alcohol minimum unit pricing debate? Comparative analysis of newspapers, evidence submissions and interviews. Drugs (Abingdon Engl), 22, 125-134.

MAANI HESSARI, N. & PETTICREW, M. 2017. What does the alcohol industry mean by 'Responsible drinking'? A comparative analysis. J Public Health (Oxf), 1-8.

MCCAMBRIDGE, J., KYPRI, K., MILLER, P., HAWKINS, B. & HASTINGS, G. 2014. Be aware of Drinkaware. Addiction, 109, 519-24.

MOODIE, R., STUCKLER, D., MONTEIRO, C., SHERON, N., NEAL, B., THAMARANGSI, T., LINCOLN, P. & CASSWELL, S. 2013. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet, 381, 670-9.

PETTICREW, M., MAANI HESSARI, N., KNAI, C. & WEIDERPASS, E. 2017. How alcohol industry organisations mislead the public about alcohol and cancer. Drug Alcohol Rev.

PETTICREW, M., MAANI HESSARI, N., KNAI, C. & WEIDERPASS, E. 2018. The strategies of alcohol industry SAPROs: Inaccurate information, misleading language and the use of confounders to downplay and misrepresent the risk of cancer. Drug Alcohol Rev.

PETTICREW, M. P. & LEE, K. 2011. The "father of stress" meets "big tobacco": Hans Selye and the tobacco industry. Am J Public Health, 101, 411-8.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION 2010. Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol.

*Carcinogen is any substance or agent that promotes the formation of cancer

Image: ‘Spilling wine’ (3375802661_fc4ff615ba_z) by Gunnar Grimnes via Flickr.com, copyright © 2009: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gromgull/3375802661

Dementia: not drowning but waving

Posted by Mark Parkinson, Post Graduate Student at Northumbria University

It's Dementia Awareness Week in England as part of Alzheimer’s Society’s ongoing campaign to raise public awareness of this disease. It also affords us the opportunity to take stock of just how far we have progressed since the dark days of the 1980s. Back then a mood of extreme pessimism surrounded dementia amid stark warnings that this ‘rising tide’ represented an unstoppable tsunami-like force that would engulf the UK. Attempts to avert the coming disaster were seen as futile and hopeless, akin to King Canute holding back the sea. The prevailing mood of despondency was ‘justified’ by nine fallacies of dementia emanating from a general lack of knowledge and understanding about dementia.


The Great Wave off Kanagawa

• Fallacy No.1: Dementia was commonly perceived to be part of ‘normal ageing’. Dementia is now widely acknowledged as a clinical condition characterised by neurobiological abnormalities that distinguish it from so-called ‘normal’ ageing. The public perception of dementia as a disease that is separate from ‘normal’ ageing is increasing in the UK but campaigns such as Dementia Awareness Week are still necessary.
• Fallacy No.2: Dementia is unavoidable. Protective factors that help guard against vascular dementia in particular include our lifestyle choices, including smoking cessation, regular exercise, adherence to a healthy diet and avoiding becoming obese. The identification of potential triggers for dementia paves the way for future interventions that might mitigate the onset of dementia entirely, including monitoring for catalysts for dementia such as cardio-vascular disease, obesity, diabetes and depression. Intervention programs targeting at-risk groups have demonstrated success in preventing dementia, e.g. FINGER (a two-year programme that focuses on diet, exercise, cognitive retraining and monitoring and treating vascular risk). Latest research also highlights further candidate triggers for dementia such as interleukin 33 (IL-33) protein deficiency which may be remedied via injections to prevent dementia.
• Fallacy No.3: Dementia is irreversible. Although this remains the case for now, the development of treatments such as Galantamine have been shown to at least moderate the effects of dementia.
• Fallacy No.4: Dementia is untreatable. The search for a cure for dementia remains ongoing and we have moved into an era where the potential discovery of better treatments and an eventual cure has never been so high. For now though prevention via identification of key triggers remains the main option in the absence of a cure.
• Fallacy No.5: Dementia is a diagnosis to mortality within seven years. Dementia related diseases such as Alzheimer’s now have a typical duration of 10 or more years and evidence suggests that, in general, people with dementia are living longer. The challenge continues to be ensuring they live as well as possible.
• Fallacy No.6: Dementia is too varied and unpredictable to treat. Greater understanding of the different sub-types of dementia, their different causes and symptoms, combined with improved ability to detect them makes treatment for dementia a more viable possibility.
• Fallacy No.7: Dementia is only detected when it is already too late to act. This remains a key issue; however, improved diagnostic tests and screening have improved early detection of the disease.
• Fallacy No.8: Dementia is too expensive to treat. Recent interventions such as Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) can be delivered to people living with dementia via just 14 hourly sessions. CST has demonstrated equivalent but more sustained effects compared to relatively expensive drug treatments.
• Fallacy No.9: The number of those with dementia will increase exponentially in the future. Recent comparisons between CFAS1 (Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies) (1991) and CFAS2 (2015) conducted by Cambridge University reveal that dementia prevalence in the UK has actually declined by 22 per cent over this 24 year period. Those born in the latter part of the 20th century exhibit a lower risk factor for dementia than those born earlier. The tsunami warnings of the 1980s have been proven wrong.

Importantly, all this does not signal a time to relax. The need to raise awareness of dementia and the challenges associated with it remains as urgent as ever. In the 1980s a sense of urgency towards tackling dementia provided a much needed catalyst for change. Today a key difference is that this urgency is no longer fuelled by impotent fear but by renewed hope and optimism that galvanises fresh impetus to all our endeavours to beat the disease.

With acknowledgement to the inspired presentation on 25 April, 2016 at the first Gateshead Dementia Conference by Dr.Daniel Collerton (Clinical Psychologist associated with dementia care at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead).

It's April: happy stress awareness month everyone!

Guest post by Dr Emily Henderson, Lecturer in Knowledge Exchange in Public Health and Research Fellow in Complex Systems at Durham University

April is stress awareness month. Why, you may ask? Maybe because it’s tax season. Or because parents have to look after their children during the Easter holidays. Or perhaps it’s to help recover from all the April Fools’ Day jokes, like the poor guy in Canada this year who reportedly collapsed from heart palpitations after his work colleagues convinced him he had to cut his holiday short to meet a deadline that had been moved forward.

 

Whatever the reason, it is happening this month. The Health Resource Network has deemed it so. And we at Fuse think it is a good opportunity to raise awareness about stress.

But I am already aware that I’m stressed, I can virtually hear you reply. Fair enough. Nearly half of UK adults report feeling stressed every day or every few days, according to the Mental Health Foundation. With budget cuts, job insecurity and global crises, just to begin with, we all are stressed.

  

So what am I to do about it? We all have our coping strategies, which are biologically understood responses that humans and animals alike have evolved. Chimpanzees are known to groom each other to cope with threats and re-establish bonds. Stress and suffering are human universals. We can measure stress via stress hormones like cortisol, and there are physiological and some behavioural responses we can predict, like the ‘fight or flight’ response. But some behaviours are not predictable, and do not always make (immediate) sense. For example, Hilary Graham’s ethnographies of low-income single mothers showed us that, paradoxically, smoking was used to cope with suffering and thus improve wellbeing.

You, dear reader, have asked so many good questions up to this point, I have one for you: Considering the ‘causes of the causes’ of ill health, is the actual problem that these women smoked or is it the disadvantage they experienced? We have no choice but to cope in our own ways with stress. After trial and error, I know better now what I need to get perspective and find stillness inside. I am addicted to the oxygen highs I get through practicing yoga, and require connection with nature and people. But as a native to San Francisco, I am under cultural obligations to indulge in wine. Nobody is perfect. And nor should we ever aspire to this elusive ideal. Indeed, evidence for the health benefits of practicing compassion - either compassion for ourselves or for others - is growing. Beyond changing our behaviours, we must change the structures and systems that generate stress.

Spring is actually not about chocolate bunnies, but about renewal. So this April, in addition to trying new ways to cope with stress (see the Huffington Posts compilation of articles for Stress Awareness month, or NHS Choices mindfulness article), maybe get involved in a cause that seeks to alleviate suffering.

Please check out the Stress, Health and Wellbeing special interest group that I run through the Wolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing at Durham University.

Photo credits

1. http://slstpaso.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/April-for-email.png

2. http://missinghumanmanual.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/grooming-chimps.jpg

3. https://thimesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/keep-calm-make-your-voice-heard.png?w=600