Why safer spaces matter for young people’s physical activity

Posted by Caroline Dodd-Reynolds, Professor of Physical Activity, Durham University

Fuse Associate Professor Caroline Dodd-Reynolds explores what can be done to create environments in which LGBTQ+ young people feel safe to enjoy physical activity. Fuse blog in Pride Month.

This work forms part of the Joyful and Safe Physical Activity (JASPA) project, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). This project, and the funding that supports it, are only possible through Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, and its membership of the NIHR School for Public Health Research (SPHR).

The 2026 Commonwealth Games come to Scotland this summer, showcasing elite athletes at the top of their game. But for most of us, physical activity looks much more ordinary: walking to school, joining a PE lesson, dancing in the kitchen or going to the gym.

Now think about how that kind of movement feels. Easy? Enjoyable? Safe?

For many LGBTQ+ young people living in disadvantaged areas, the answer to those questions is no.

In our creative joyful and safe physical activity project, young people aged 14-21 showed us how adults can make physical activity feel more fun, safe and inclusive. They did this by reimagining what it means to be active, and by bringing colour, creativity and vibrancy into traditional sport and exercise spaces.

Around 80% of adolescents globally do not do enough physical activity, and global physical inactivity has remained largely unchanged for the past two decades. This affects growth, development, mental health and physical health. We also know that some young people face greater barriers than others, including those living in poorer areas, disabled and neurodivergent young people, and those with questions around their gender or sexuality.

Every child and young person should be able to take part in movement and physical activity without feeling disengaged, excluded or unsafe. Physical activity can, and should, bring joy. But this is not only about competitive sport, PE or joining a gym. Movement can also mean walking, dancing, playing active games, skating in the park, or simply feeling able to move through a space without fear.

In our earlier research, young people often knew exactly where they could be active: outdoors, at school or college, or in a local leisure centre if one was available. But knowing where to go was not the same as feeling able to take part. They described feeling harassed, worried, unsafe or excluded from physical activity.

We call this “physical activity insecurity”: when a young person’s ability to be active is limited because a space feels uncomfortable, exposing or unsafe. This can be especially acute for young people whose experiences of poverty, disability, neurodiversity, gender or sexuality overlap. Some transgender and non-binary young people in our research described harassment, exclusion and gender discrimination that made ordinary movement feel difficult or risky.

We worked with young people to explore what safer, more joyful physical activity spaces could look like.

Creating inclusive spaces

So what can adults, schools, youth workers, leisure centres and other community organisations do?

First, the language we use matters. Terms such as sport, gym or exercise can be immediately off-putting for some young people, especially if they already associate these words with embarrassment, exclusion or previous bad experiences.

Thinking about physical activity more holistically and using the term “movement” instead can help. Physical activity can be something as simple as walking.

Second, adults need to have honest conversations with young people about how they relate to physical activity. This might include talking about stereotypes around sport, PE or exercise, and how these make young people feel. It might also mean recognising that some young people have many other pressures in their lives, making physical activity feel like one more difficult or exposing thing.

Young people are most likely to engage with someone they already know and trust, in a calm and welcoming space. From there, adults can help reimagine physical activity as movement that might be enjoyable, informal and part of everyday life. This could mean dancing in the kitchen, roller-skating in the park, going for a walk, or simply feeling able to enter a room without bracing for judgement. More traditional sporting examples may work too, but they should not be the only starting point.

Third, adults can ask what might help organised and formal physical activity spaces feel more like the spaces young people imagine for themselves. That means listening to young people’s ideas, being open to challenge and rethinking what counts as a good physical activity space. For example, a good space may not be the one with the best equipment. It may be the one where young people can choose whether to join in, wear clothes they feel comfortable in, see signs that they are welcome, and leave for a quieter area if they need to.

Welcoming and safe

On a practical level, most physical activity spaces, whether indoor or outdoor, can be made to feel more inclusive and safe. Small changes can make a big difference. These might include using more vibrant colours, displaying friendly messages and avoiding long lists of rules and instructions.

It can also help to make participation optional rather than compulsory, provide a quiet space where young people can step away when needed, and reconsider clothing rules, which can be a major barrier for some.

The point is not to make every young person love sport. It is to ask why some spaces make movement feel exposing, difficult or risky. If adults want young people to be more active, the first step is not another rule, target or campaign. It is creating places where they do not have to brace themselves before joining in.

Find out more

• Access practical guidance for adults working with children and young people disengaged from physical activity.
• Find out more about this work, including a Moving Spaces 'zine' co-produced with young people.

Adapted with thanks to The Conversation

More than quit rates - our smoking research was about complexity, trust, and real voices

Posted by Angela Rodrigues, Associate Professor at Northumbria University, and co-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Cluster, and Team

By the time we wrapped up our final interviews, we felt a mix of pride, exhaustion, and curiosity. Pride because we’d managed to complete a complex mixed-methods evaluation across four pilot sites. Exhaustion because, well, public health research never seems to run smoothly, and we had a few recruitment bumps along the way. And curiosity because we still weren’t sure how all the pieces would fit together. This was a mixed-methods evaluation of a 20-week smoking cessation service in the North East & North Cumbria.

The context: why this service mattered

When we first got involved, the idea was simple: evaluate an enhanced stop smoking service designed specifically for people living with severe mental illness (SMI). People with SMI experience stark health inequalities. On average, they die 15-20 years earlier than the general population, largely due to chronic physical health conditions rather than psychiatric causes. Smoking is a major reason for this health gap, and it is something that can be changed. Yet many tobacco dependence services do not adequately meet their needs.

The service offered more support than the standard provided by the local council, combining behavioural support with medication-assisted treatment over 20 weeks. It followed a ‘cut down to quit’ model, and aimed to be person-centred, flexible, and responsive.

Our approach: mixed methods and lived experience

We used a mixed-methods approach, including quantitative analysis of recruitment and outcomes, surveys with service providers, qualitative interviews with both staff and service users, and a review of Smokefree Taskforce documents. We started with a well-defined plan, but the process taught us to embrace flexibility. Recruitment was slow. Referral pathways shifted. Data systems didn’t always talk to each other. And finding service users willing to be interviewed was harder than we expected.

One of the most rewarding aspects was working with our Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP). They helped shape our protocol, refine our interview questions, and interpret findings. Their input reminded us why we do this work. It’s easy to get lost in methodological frameworks, but the real insight often comes from lived experience. One LEAP member words stuck with us:

“You need to understand what it’s like to be told to quit smoking when smoking is the only thing that gets you through the day.”

What we found: complexity at every level

The Behaviour Change Wheel framework (figure 1) helped us make sense of what was happening on the ground. Service providers used a range of strategies, including medication, leaflets, nicotine e-cigarettes, planning, and social support. Most felt capable and motivated to deliver the service, but some found it more harder than expected. Complexity was a recurring theme, as illustrated in one advisor words:

“It’s not just about smoking, it’s about everything else going on in their lives.”

Figure 1: Visual map of key themes identified in our study

We also saw how broader systems shaped delivery. Some sites had strong links with primary care; others struggled. Data recording was patchy. Staff wanted more training, not just in smoking cessation, but in understanding mental health complexity more broadly. And while the service was designed to be flexible, that flexibility sometimes created confusion. Who was eligible? How long should support last? What counted as a successful quit?

For service users, the benefits were clear: 

• better physical and mental health
• financial savings
• fewer unpleasant smells
• and fewer side effects than expected.

But staying engaged was tough. Motivation fluctuated. Life got in the way. Participants reminded us regularly that behaviour change doesn’t happen in a vacuum:

“I wanted to quit, but then my meds changed and everything fell apart.”

The challenge and value of qualitative work

Personally, we found the qualitative interviews both the most challenging and the most illuminating part of the process. Some participants were open and reflective; others were more reserved and required extra support and reassurance to feel comfortable speaking openly, particularly service users. We learned to be flexible in our approach, arranging a casual phone call with service users to build a rapport prior to the interview.

Despite the difficulties recruiting service users, once they were engaged in the interviews, all were eager and willing to share their experiences. We learned that it is important to develop a level of trust with service users, and that patience and empathy can encourage openness and in-depth understanding.

There were challenges too. We had hoped for more interviews with service users, more consistent data, and deeper engagement with those delivering the service. In particular, connecting with service deliverers proved difficult, largely due to the time lag between service implementation and the research evaluation. By the time we began our research, staff had moved on, memories had faded, and priorities had shifted, making it harder to capture a full and accurate picture of delivery. But public health research rarely hands you a neatly packaged story. What it does offer is insight into systems, into people, and into the messy, unpredictable reality of trying to improve lives.

Why it worked: partnership and collaboration

Looking back, we think the study worked because it was grounded in genuine partnership. The Smokefree NHS strategic team were incredible, collaborative, responsive, and deeply committed to making the service work.

We built relationships with service providers who shared their experiences openly, with LEAP members who challenged our assumptions, and with service users who trusted us enough to talk. Within our research team, we supported each other through the inevitable ups and downs. That collective effort, across roles, organisations, and lived experiences, is what made the project feel meaningful.

This experience has already shaped how we’re approaching future projects. Next time, we’ll go in with clearer expectations, more flexible timelines, and a deeper appreciation for the emotional labour involved, not just for us as researchers, but for the people we’re working with.

Researching smoking cessation in people living with severe mental illness isn’t just about measuring quit rates or evaluating service models. It’s about recognising the complexity of their lives, earning trust, and ensuring their voices shape the research process. More than anything, this project reminded us that we, as researchers, must be more attuned, more patient, and more willing to adapt.

---

About the authors:

Dr Angela Rodrigues, Associate Professor, Northumbria University, and co-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Cluster

Dr Lauren Hoult, Associate Lecturer, Researcher in Behaviour Change & Public Health, Northumbria University

Prof Katie Haighton, Professor in Public Health and Wellbeing, Northumbria University

Brand to ban: What young people really think about energy drinks

Posted by Professor Amelia Lake, Fuse Deputy Director; Dr Helen Moore, Fuse Associate; and Grace Stewart - Teesside University. 

Walk into any corner shop, and you’ll see them lined up in the fridge: brightly coloured cans promising energy, improved focus and even hydration. They’re everywhere online too, all over social media feeds... What are we talking about? Energy drinks. They have become a familiar part of the landscape in the UK, but particularly for young people who are consuming them in ever increasing numbers; the question is, why are they so popular, and what is being done about it?

What are energy drinks?

High-caffeine energy drinks are soft drinks that contain at least 150 milligrams (mg) of caffeine per litre of drink, which is higher than other soft drinks. Back in 2018, Jamie Oliver led a campaign that resulted in many retailers voluntarily banning sales to under-16s. Fast forward to July 2024, and the new Labour Government announced in the King’s Speech that it would restrict the sale of energy drinks to under-18s. There is currently a live Government consultation around banning the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children which will close on 26 November 2025. If you want to contribute, please do so.

Our research

Our mixed-method qualitative study was published in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics this week. The work was carried out in North-East England and sheds light on the reasons behind young people still consuming these drinks in large numbers, and what they, the consumers, really think could be done about it.

Our research involved:

• Focus groups with 50 students aged 9–14 years old
• A survey completed by 22 Year 9 students (aged 13–14 years old)

The aim was to understand how children and young people perceive energy drinks and hydration drinks, and to explore their consumption habits post the UK’s 2018 voluntary sales ban to under-16s. This follows on from our earlier work published in 2017.

What did we find?

• 81.8% of surveyed students (13-14 year olds) consume energy drinks, with boys drinking more frequently than girls.
• Most young people drink EDs 2-4 times a week, and many started before age 12 years.
• Taste, branding, and peer influence were major motivators.
• Corner/local shops were the most common purchase point, often with little enforcement of age restrictions.
• Hydration drinks (e.g. PRIME) are seen as healthier alternatives, though their actual health impact is still unclear.

So, why are energy drinks so popular?

Through the focus groups, we learned that young people are really clued-up about energy drinks. They talked about branding, marketing, taste, peer influence, cost, and just how easy it is to get hold of them. From YouTube ads to celebrity endorsements (think F1 and YouTubers like Logan Paul and KSI), marketing was seen as a powerful force driving consumption. One young person said:

“If I made the exact same drink, in a bottle, no one would buy it.”

Bright colours, cool designs, and slogans were all cited as reasons that young people are drawn to these products. Many of the young people taking part in the research knew that they were being targeted by the manufacturers, but they didn’t mind. In fact, some saw energy drinks as part of their identity, linked to gaming, sports, or just being “cool.”

Policy gaps and opportunities

Despite the 2018 voluntary ban mainly in supermarkets, energy drinks remain easily accessible. Many children believed there was a legal age restriction but said that they could still buy energy drinks from shops or online without ID checks. This links back to the importance of the current live consultation around Energy Drinks and sales restrictions.

This raises an important point for policymakers to consider: if energy drinks are still seen as aspirational, accessible, and part of youth culture, young people will find ways to get them, or switch to similar products that exist outside of the ban. There needs to be a wider strategy to tackle this, which means tighter regulation of marketing (anywhere that young people spend their time - including online spaces), effective, up-to-date, accurate education about the health impacts of energy drinks and the tactics used by manufacturers, and importantly including young people in this conversation.

Our research shows that young people are not passive consumers of energy drinks. They’re thoughtful, aware, and influenced by a range of social and cultural factors that need to be understood if we want to reduce energy drink consumption.

Our study had several possible interventions suggested by young people:

• Actual legislative enforcement of age restrictions.
• Changing product placement in stores (e.g., away from essentials and in areas similar to cigarettes and alcohol).
• Duller packaging and clearer health warnings.
• Wider awareness around health risks.

Why this matters

Energy drinks are linked to a range of health issues; from insomnia and anxiety to obesity and poor academic performance. Yet, their appeal among young people remains strong, driven by clever, pervasive, marketing in addition to peer influence.

Our paper highlights the urgent need for strong policy action, increased awareness, and further research in this space.

Images:

1: Photo by (Joenomias) Menno de Jong from Pixabay

2: Photo by thom masat on Unsplash (with modifications)

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

"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

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

Over the rainbow: research with an intersectional perspective

Posted by Dr Mark Adley, Research Associate, Newcastle University

• LGBTQ+ is an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, with the "+" sign recognising the multiple permutations of sexual orientation and gender identity.

• Intersectionality looks at how social inequities such as racism, sexism, or classism can interact and shape people’s social experiences.

"Reaching Out", pencil and pen drawing and digital collage by artist Sarah Li (2024)

In this Question and Answer blog, Mark shares some of his reflections on intersectionality when working with marginalised groups, and the importance of taking extra steps to make sure that the quieter voices are also heard. LGBTQ+ people are not a single group, and sexism, racism, classism and other social inequities can create unexpected intersections.

What was the focus of your PhD research project?
My PhD examined marginalisation in health and social care services in North East England, specifically looking at multiply marginalised LGBTQ+ people – those who had faced additional experiences of, for example, homelessness, substance use, racism, or domestic abuse. Seventy-two people across the region took part in interviews – 33 with professionals and 39 with marginalised LGBTQ+ people.

How would you explain intersectionality to someone new to the concept?
The shortest explanation would be that 1+1 does not equal 2. Intersectionality examines how different aspects of our identities can interact – creating unique experiences of discrimination. For example, a Black woman's experience isn't simply the addition of being Black plus being a woman. She may experience racism differently than a Black man, and she may experience sexism differently than a White woman. Her experiences as a Black woman are a unique intersection of race and gender. As Zora Neale Hurston perfectly captured in 1928: ‘I feel most coloured when I am thrown against a sharp white background’.

What challenges did you face in participant recruitment?
One major challenge was ensuring diverse representation. I noticed early on that lesbians and bisexual women were underrepresented, so I paused recruitment to address this. This led to an unexpected complexity – navigating the cultural and political debates around gender identity, particularly around use of the word ‘woman’ – and how to distinguish between cisgender and transgender women without causing offence.

How did you handle the sensitive terminology around gender identity?

It required extensive consultation with five women who held different perspectives on this issue. We eventually reached what I'd call a diplomatic compromise on language – while no one was completely satisfied, no one was seriously offended either. This highlighted the importance of careful navigation in sensitive cultural debates.

Recruitment flyers for lesbian, bi, queer, and pansexual women (left) and LGBTQ+ people of colour (right)

What adjustments did you make to ensure racial diversity in your study?

By March 2023 I had interviewed nine LGBTQ+ people from non-White British backgrounds, but only six were from non-White ethnic groups. After reflecting on the specific experiences of discrimination and invisibility shared by LGBTQ+ people of colour, I paused recruitment again. Following consultation with queer people from ethnically minoritised groups we rebranded the study, including removing rainbow imagery in favour of a brown background, as the rainbow was perceived as ‘very White-presenting’.

What key lessons did you learn about conducting research with an intersectional perspective?
The research required a constant shift in my own focus as a researcher. First, looking inward through reflexivity – examining my own unchecked biases and assumptions and their impact on how the study was conducted. Second, looking outward to understand the broader systems of power that influenced people’s experiences of marginalisation. It's a complex balance that requires both zooming in and out, while avoiding what has been called the ‘fetishization of complexity’.

The study’s key findings and recommendations

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings from the study are available in several formats

PDFs can be downloaded from the project’s website, with videos on YouTube and an Open Access scoping review published in BMC Health Services Research. Mark is involved in ongoing work exploring the experiences of LGBTQ+ people of colour, and collaborations with local organisations in consideration of intersectionality across the North East and Cumbria. To contact Mark or receive project updates via the mailing list click here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North East and North Cumbria (NENC) (NIHR200173). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

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

When stigma came to town: why a quick fix can never work with a life-long problem

Posted by Ian Treasure, Programme Manager, Changing Futures Lancashire and Cassey Muir, Research Associate, Newcastle University

“When you point a finger, three point back,” a member of our Lived Experience panel said while discussing stigma. Stigma is often invisible, yet it shapes how people perceive themselves and are perceived by others. This saying reminds us that before we judge others, we should first reflect on our own behaviours, actions, and beliefs.

 

The Changing Futures Lancashire Programme and taking a trauma-informed approach

The Changing Futures Lancashire (CFL) programme was one of 15 areas in England chosen to receive funding to test and learn approaches to supporting adults experiencing multiple disadvantage. Anyone experiencing three of the following five conditions were able to access our services:

• substance misuse
• homelessness
• criminal justice involvement
• poor mental health
• domestic violence

CFL was a follow on from Fulfilling Lives which also supported this cohort. CFL was different as it was funded through local authorities in an attempt to gain more traction for system-wide change needed to support a seldom heard group. The funders were Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and The National Lottery Community Fund.

Nationally, we focused on measuring improvements for the people we support, how well services work together, and how decisions are made at a higher level. The aim was to create significant changes in the system so that people with complex needs can access the support they need more easily. We adopted a trauma informed approach in the way we offer and provide support. For example, we understand that individuals who may appear aggressive could actually be scared, confused, or reliving past trauma. This non-judgmental approach not only shapes how our providers assist individuals with complex needs but also affects how the adults we support view themselves.

The majority of beneficiaries (90%+) in the Changing Futures programme face poly-substance use (using more than one substance at a time) as the main condition that developed into multiple disadvantage. Many have shared how chronic drug use often leads to involvement with the criminal justice system, poor mental health, and eventually homelessness. Alongside these challenges, many individuals have experienced parental abuse or neglect. Their negative school experiences, often tied to undiagnosed learning disabilities or other barriers, have also shaped their struggles. Over time, our beneficiaries have developed coping strategies to survive—tools they rely on to navigate a world that often feels unsupportive.

Shining a light on stigma

The CFL Programme has made significant strides in supporting individuals facing multiple disadvantage. However, as we delved deeper into the challenges faced by our beneficiaries, we uncovered an invisible yet pervasive barrier: stigma. This insight shifted our focus and prompted us to ask: 

how can we tackle the stigma that often prevents people from seeking the help they need?

People with lived experience helped shape the CFL model, ensuring that it addresses the needs of those who understand these challenges best. During conversations with our beneficiaries, we found that many initially hesitated to seek help because of the trauma and judgment they felt during comprehensive assessments. We responded by removing this entry barrier, focusing instead on the sharing of information between services followed by a more conversational approach that helps build trust without the fear of interrogation. This small change proved to be a key turning point for many individuals, making them feel more comfortable returning for support.

 

 

Across Lancashire we also have started to shed light on the issue of stigma. We created the powerful and thought-provoking film above featuring people with lived experience and other professionals sharing their stories, which has been viewed thousands of times. One case study highlighted a single mum afraid to visit the pharmacy near her child’s school for fear of being seen picking up methadone by another parent, and the stigma she faces as a result. Another featured a man who is street homeless, sleeping in a public toilet, only to be kicked out by the cleaner in font of commuters. These are painful reminders of some people’s situations and how different they feel from everyone else. It became clear that it wasn’t enough for us to only think about how we tackle stigma across our services, we also had to ask ourselves: what else can be done to prevent stigma and to reduce its impact on individuals?

The CFL board agreed that we should do some credible research into the topic. We sent out an enquiry of interest form and Fuse researchers responded.

Reducing stigma: research findings and key recommendations

The project between the CFL programme and Fuse was to conduct a review of the research into what can be done to reduce stigma for adults who experience multiple disadvantage.

At the heart of our work are the people with lived experience who have been instrumental in shaping our approach. Their first-hand insights have been invaluable not only in designing effective services but also in guiding our research on stigma. Many panel members shared how they overcame their own stigma through achievements like gaining employment, while others still face the stigma of past criminal convictions – something that remains a barrier to moving forward. Their voices are central to the research and the recommendations we’ve developed.

We brought together 51 review papers and found that most focused on reducing mental health stigma. Fewer studies addressed stigma related to drug and alcohol use. There was limited research on stigma linked to domestic violence, homelessness, criminal justice involvement, and poverty. Our panel felt that the findings would be relevant across various forms of disadvantage, reflecting that poor mental health or alcohol and drug use often serve as the primary ways people come into contact with services.

The research we reviewed found that stigma reduction approaches typically focused on:

• individuals experiencing disadvantage and stigma
• practitioners who provide support
• the public

There was little research on system-level changes, such as policy changes, that could address stigma more broadly.

We found that social support, particularly through peer-led or group-based approaches, was highly effective in reducing self-stigma among people facing multiple disadvantage. Peer connections helped individuals build stronger and more positive identities and gain confidence, breaking down feelings of isolation.

Additionally, we discovered that combining educational strategies with contact-based training was a powerful way to reduce stigma amongst practitioners and the public. Educational efforts - such as presentations or information addressing misconceptions about disadvantages - were most effective when paired with opportunities for practitioners and the public to meet and learn from people with lived experience. This combination allowed for a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by those with multiple disadvantages and proved more effective than using either method alone.

We engaged with our Lived Experience panel to discuss and explore recommendations. They came up with eight key recommendations to advance this work into practice:

1. Facilitate peer connections: Provide opportunities for individuals experiencing disadvantage to connect with others who share similar lived experiences. This can help reduce isolation, foster mutual support, and reduce feelings of shame and embarrassment.
2. Promote peer leadership and advocacy: Encourage individuals with lived experience to take on leadership roles or act as advocates within services. This could help challenge stigma and provide role models for others facing similar challenges.
3. Incorporate lived experience in service design and delivery: Actively involve individuals with lived experience in the design, development, and delivery of services to ensure they are relevant, responsive, and inclusive.
4. Embed trauma and stigma informed practices throughout the organisation: Apply both a trauma and stigma informed approach across all levels of the workplace. Training should not only be limited to frontline staff but also extend to managers, supervisors, and directors to ensure everyone is stigma-aware.
5. Ensure long-term commitment to anti-stigma efforts: Integrate anti-stigma interventions into ongoing practice, ensuring they are not one-off sessions. Offer regular refresher courses to reinforce learning and maintain long-term impact.
6. Foster collaboration across services: Promote collaboration between all services to ensure they adopt stigma-aware practices. This includes working together across sectors, such as housing, mental health, and other support services, to create a cohesive approach to addressing stigma.
7. Engage the community: Work on community outreach to raise awareness about stigma and its effects, helping to foster a more inclusive and empathetic environment in the wider community.
8. Implement system-wide change: Advocate for policy changes that address the root causes of stigma, such as social inequalities, and promote fair access to services for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances. System-level changes are crucial because stigma isn’t just about individual attitudes; it’s embedded in our systems, policies, and institutions.

We need your help

The insights from the Changing Futures programme and our research are clear: tackling stigma requires a holistic, multi-level approach. By prioritising peer support, lived experience, and trauma-informed practices, we can make real, lasting change. Now, we need your help. Join us in challenging stigma, watch and share our videos, and support this movement. Together, we can create a more inclusive, empathetic society where everyone has the chance to thrive.


Take the next step (useful resources):

• Join the anti-stigma network
• See the presentations from the recent Fuse and Changing Futures Lancashire event - Understanding the impact of stigma and multiple disadvantage, A call to action
• Watch the Changing Futures Lancashire video on stigma
• Watch an animation by Newcastle City Council Adults Safeguarding and Fuse Researchers - Stigma, A Call for Action
• Find out more about Changing Futures Lancashire

Going beyond bricks and mortar to 'Up' awareness of healthy homes

Posted by Natalie Forster, Philip Hodgson, and Alex Kirton from Northumbria University

“It’s just a house”. Words famously uttered by Mr Fredricksen in the much-loved film, ‘Up’. But does this really do justice to the complicated relationships we have with our homes?

There’s a steady stream of evidence now showing that housing characteristics (including issues like overcrowding, poor insulation, damp and mould) can impact on physical and mental health. And far from being just a house, we know that where you live can make a big difference to how socially connected you are, the services you can access and how safe you feel.

This increasing awareness of home as a social determinant of health has led to many local authorities introducing initiatives to address housing-related issues. Yet, evaluations often look at the effects of specific housing enhancements in isolation, and more understanding is needed of how healthy homes services can tackle housing issues in their widest sense.

The Healthy Homes service in South Tyneside is an advice and signposting-based service that aims to address people’s home-related health needs. As Fuse researchers we set out to explore its benefits for residents. We worked with the service to create a data collection tool to help capture the financial benefits of advice given, alongside interviews to explore the experiences of those who used the service.

So, what did we find?

Our analysis showed that the service was reaching people with multiple and complex housing needs, including those related to health conditions, low income and age. We found the personalised approach taken by the service to be especially successful in engaging proactively with older homeowners (like Mr Fredricksen!) who often presumed they wouldn’t qualify for housing improvements, didn’t want to be seen to be asking for help or didn’t want to lose their independence. And without this support they would have otherwise put off seeking help until a crisis hit.

Some participants were keen to swap their bricks and mortar entirely and relocate to a more suitable home or area. For others, longstanding and deep psychological connections to homes and areas meant a move would be too painful. In these circumstances, changes to home environments made through the service (like getting extra bannisters or a stairlift, and support to address cold, damp and mould) helped reduce worries about housing problems and avoided the need for unsuitable coping strategies like coming down the stairs backwards. Participants described how small housing modifications – even getting a different lightbulb when you’re worried about your electricity bills – made a difference both practically and emotionally, helping them resume ordinary and taken-for-granted aspects of life like going to bed upstairs with your partner. Yet, for many, the service also worked on a different level, with the face-to-face interaction and warm and friendly manner of staff helping people feel heard and cared for.

Ultimately, the project illuminates the complex and varied issues and feelings people have around their homes. It underscores the importance of services which see beyond the bricks and mortar of houses and consider the importance of people’s “homes”, such as those offered by South Tyneside Council, but also the crucial role that other (non-home focused) services can play in addressing the interactions between homes, health and wellbeing. Many people we spoke to were unsure of what support they are entitled to and so there’s a need to raise awareness and take up of healthy home enhancements before problems escalate. Finally, both the stories of our participants and Mr Fredricksen demonstrate how our relationships toward our homes can shift and change over time, highlighting a need for long-term and sustainable models of housing care and support.

Natalie Forster, Assistant Professor, Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University and co-lead of the Fuse Health Inequalities Research Cluster

Philip Hodgson, Assistant Professor, Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University

Alex Kirton, Research Fellow, Northumbria University

Image by Pascal Laurent from Pixabay

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.

Food insecurity in pregnancy is putting women’s health at risk and babies at a health disadvantage. That is unfair and unjust

Posted by Zoë Bell, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, King’s College London

In the three years since we started this project a lot has changed, and nothing has changed at the same time. Just as the pandemic was leaving a shadow behind us, we entered a new chapter of social and economic challenge; notably, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Brexit fuelling a cost-of-living crisis with huge impacts on our food system and food prices. These events, in their own unique ways, have left households more vulnerable to experiencing poverty, and the topic of this blog, food insecurity.

During this time, we’ve witnessed food insecurity become a more prominent feature in the news with the help of celebrity advocates and mutual aid groups which brought communities together to support one another. Headline examples are Marcus Rashford’s campaign supporting the extension of free school meals over the summer holidays, and most recently, Taylor Swift’s donation to food banks in cities across the UK as part of her tour. Within the context of a decade long erosion of the social security safety net, the charitable sector has stepped in to provide food relief; but it’s clear this is just a sticking plaster.

As fans gathered at @MurrayfieldStad on Friday for the first of three record-breaking gigs, we found out that @taylorswift13 would be making a donation to support foodbanks across the city 🪩Thank you so much Taylor 🫶
Want to help? Donate £13 (#IYKYK): https://t.co/itIShHqprD pic.twitter.com/zVh2zfbZ42

— EdinburghFoodProject (@EdinFoodProject) June 10, 2024

While temporary economic, social and nutrition policies were put in place during the pandemic to support vulnerable families, long-term commitment has been lacking.

Time is ticking and it is the most vulnerable who are paying the price. Indeed, pregnancy is a time when the consequences of inadequate support come at a premium cost.

We know how important it is for pregnant women to eat a nutritious and well-balanced diet for their own health and for their developing baby. This is where our research fits in. We set out to pull together all the available evidence to explore whether there are differences in pregnancy risks for women and babies when they experience food insecurity.

Our two new reviews of the evidence around food insecurity in pregnancy and the links with maternal weight, diet, and pregnancy health show worrying results, including both physical and mental health risks. While we were expecting to see some health implications, the extent of the risk for poorer health was shocking. Pregnant women experiencing food insecurity were significantly more likely to have poor mental health, obesity, poor quality diets, develop Gestational Diabetes and dental problems.

Infographic to translate the review findings co-designed with experts by experience during an engagement workshop in Newcastle
Upon Tyne, North East England. Funded by Tilly Hale a Newcastle University Faculty Medical Sciences Engagement fund.

Noticeably, these reviews lacked studies from the UK with studies mainly from the USA. You might ask does this matter? Yes. Why? Because the USA has long-standing nutritional support for pregnant women, with evidence of having beneficial impacts on women's diet and health. This embedded support might have reduced or completely masked some of the associations that food insecurity has with pregnancy risks reported in these studies. Whereas in the UK nutritional programs are not as extensive and women lack support. This means we might find that the risks are worse and the need for support is greater than we currently think it is in the UK.

We acknowledge these reviews are based on observational data, exploring association rather than causation. Women experiencing food insecurity are likely living with multiple other causes of stress that could be contributing to food insecurity and pregnancy risks. Nevertheless, we see from the evidence to date that these women are at risk and need more support. Our ongoing work exploring experiences of food insecurity during pregnancy also suggests that current support initiatives are not doing enough, and further policy-related intervention is required, further emphasising the need for action now.

Our new reviews show that food insecurity during pregnancy contributes to health inequalities, putting women’s health at risk, and babies at a health disadvantage from before a they are born. For example, when babies are exposed to gestational diabetes or maternal obesity, they are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes or obesity themselves later in life. That is unfair. That is unjust. So, we ask, how much more evidence is needed before urgent policy action is taken to mitigate food insecurity?

Much more support from government is needed to make sure that women and babies are protected from food insecurity during pregnancy. Only time will tell if tides will turn under this new Labour government.

So, what do we suggest?

First, an uplift in the value of the Healthy Start scheme, a policy directly related to nutrition during pregnancy and early years. Second, greater integrated care across multiple sectors for women during the pregnancy period. Thirdly, considering the wider interlinked, structural barriers for families living in poverty (and based on our broader research program) removal of the two-child benefit cap, continued expansion of childcare support and of free school meals. These policies would relieve financial pressures on households with young families.

In the meantime, watch this space as our research team has two ongoing reviews exploring pregnant women and people's experiences of food insecurity and its relationship with breastfeeding and infant feeding. Some of our other ongoing studies are exploring the experiences, risks and support needs of women during pregnancy and in the postnatal period after birth, and their families across a diverse UK population in Gateshead, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Lambeth and Bradford.

If you are inspired to help add evidence and advocate for food security amongst mothers and children, then please consider becoming a member of our Nourishing Futures Network. This was established by Fuse members working with international colleagues. The network’s mission is to lead knowledge exchange and generate knowledge in this emerging field around food insecurity before and during pregnancy and in the first 2001 days of life.

Find out more

This research has been summarised in the following:

• News item: Unaffordable food putting mums-to-be at risk
• Research brief: What impact does food insecurity have in pregnancy? - with key findings and policy relevance & implications
• Read the papers in full:
• Associations between food insecurity in high-income countries and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
• Food insecurity during pregnancy in high-income countries, and maternal weight and diet: A systematic review and meta-analysis