Would you accept money to be healthier?

Guest post by Emma Giles, Senior Research Lecturer in Public Health, Teesside University

As newspaper headlines have shown, the issue of encouraging individuals to adopt healthier lifestyle behaviours by paying them is controversial. Whilst many of us know that we should do a bit more physical activity, eat our five-a-day fruit and vegetables and even attend our vaccination and screening appointments, we don’t always do this. Many barriers prevent us from fully engaging with these healthy behaviours, and these barriers are often complex, individual, and are not always easily surmountable. These barriers range from living away from green spaces which would allow outdoor exercising, to deep-seated social norms that stop individuals from engaging in healthy behaviours because they are not well accepted by family, friends or the wider community.

In recent years there has been a growing body of research looking at paying people to be healthier. This essentially means providing individuals or groups with cash, shopping vouchers or gifts in return for the adoption of healthier behaviours. Such schemes include the Pound for Pound weight loss incentive scheme, the Give it Up for Baby scheme, and offering incentives for breastfeeding.

In order to hear recent research evidence, and to provide a forum for friendly debate, I organised the recent Fuse Quarterly Research Meeting, which focused on payment for health behaviours. Last Wednesday (22 July), policymakers, practitioners, and academics came together to hear presentations from four academics and practitioners working in the broad field of incentives. As Claire Sullivan, a Consultant in Public Health from Public Health England mentioned in her opening address as Chair of the meeting, often incentives can take various forms – including paper pants for Chlamydia screening!

In terms of specific incentives, Professor Pat Hoddinott, Chair in Primary Care, Nursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit at the University of Stirling, presented research which focused on incentives for breastfeeding and to quit smoking in pregnancy – the BIBS study. Key findings suggest that tailoring of incentives is important to meet local needs, but that they show promise to encourage these behaviours.

Professor David Tappin, Professor for Clinical Trials in Children within the School of Medicine at the University of Glasgow, followed Pat by showcasing data from the CPIT trial – a smoking cessation in pregnancy trial in its second phase. Results showed that there was a 14% increase in quit rate and further analysis showed that there was a 150g increase in birth weight of babies born to mothers who quit smoking. Findings suggest that financial incentives were found to be acceptable by the women involved, and may double the quit rate when used with existing smoking cessation services.

A practitioner perspective was provided by Mr Andrew Radley, Consultant in Public Health Pharmacy, NHS Tayside, who talked about operationalising the use of financial incentives in a stop smoking programme within a community pharmacy setting. In particular, 393 women in Tayside engaged with the smoking cessation services, and incentives were found to be effective. Of note was the finding that mothers preferred receiving their incentives on a weekly basis.

I spoke last and presented qualitative data exploring the acceptability of incentives. The findings suggest that incentives are more likely to be accepted if they are provided to certain population groups including pregnant women and those on a low income, but not for those who may have alcohol or drug problems. The ‘perfect’ incentive has yet to be identified, but it will need to be shown to be cost-effective for it to be accepted on a wider scale.

The presenters were then joined by Peter Kelly, Director of Public Health Stockton Borough Council, Jim Beall, Health and Wellbeing Board Chairman, and Dr Jean Adams NIHR Research Fellow at CEDAR for a panel discussion. The audience raised many questions and comments around the use of incentives, with particular concerns around incentives increasing health inequalities, aggressively placing the blame of poor health on individuals, and that incentives may result in moral implications when individuals are rewarded for their behaviour. The debate suggested that more research evidence is needed to discover what type of incentive works for whom, and in what setting, and to better explore group (rather than individual) incentives.

What is obvious is that paying people to be healthier is an emotive topic, a highly contested intervention approach, but at the same time, it also shows promise to encourage individuals to adopt healthier lifestyle behaviours. It certainly provides food for thought…how many of us would accept money to be healthier?

Follow this link to find out more about the Fuse Quarterly Research Meeting ‘Payment for health behaviours: the case of health promoting financial incentives’ on the Fuse website.

Did you enjoy reading this post? If so, please vote for Fuse in the UK Blog Awards 2016 by clicking here

Mind over matter in Fuse?

Posted by Peter van der Graaf, AskFuse Research Manager

Mental health is a rising star on national and local agendas. At national level, mental health was for the first time ever included in all of the main political party election manifestos and features significantly in the NHS Five Year Forward View. At local level, Public Health teams across the North East are reviewing their mental health services and upskilling themselves in the best ways to reduce self-harm and suicide. You may ask what all the fuss is about?

Various reports have pointed out that poor mental health is costing the UK economy £105bn per year, including £8bn annually in sickness absence, and a further £15bn in lost productivity absenteeism (where people are at work, but under-perform due to mental health issues). The Care Quality Commission (CQC) recently sounded the alarm over the state of mental health services in England. In its first ever review of mental health crisis care, the regulator found that 42% of patients did not get the help they needed.

The picture is particularly bleak in the North East, which has the highest suicide rates in the UK and rates have been going up steadily since the economic recession and public sector cuts (after a long period of stabilisation) and are likely to increase further with additional cutbacks planned in recent spending reviews. Not surprisingly, mental health issues are higher in deprived areas, among men, those who are unemployed, and related to alcohol problems, all of which the North East is leading on in national league tables. Mental health services, described by one of our practice partners as “the Cinderella of Public Health”, are bearing the brunt of these cuts, in times when you could argue that their service users need them most.

To make the most of existing intelligence and services, the Public Health Intelligence Northern England (PHINE) network recently organised a dedicated event on self-harm and suicide, offering participants access to various interactive data sets (e.g. Community Mental Health Profiles) to help local authorities make sense of national data for their own patch. Where are the suicide hotspots in different localities? Who are most at risk and what services can they access? The data profiles were well received by the audience but were also met with some criticism around lack of integration with local data, such as counselling data collected by GPs in the North East. Moreover, although this data helps to identify what is happening where, it does not allow for answers to the question why? Public health commissioners need help to interpret this data and understand why suicide and risks are going up in one area or user group but not in another.

What can Fuse do to support this? Are we making our research on mental health issues available to decision makers and professionals? For instance, where can Public Health practitioners find information about the lessons learned in the award winning Change UR Mind about Young People project (evaluated by our Translational Research programme); or about the literature review on self-harm produced by the Knowledge to Action Group within our Complex Systems programme? Moreover, is our research responding to local concerns and needs? Do we help them in interpreting national data and matching this with their own data? And do we support them in developing interventions to address hot spots? How can Fuse work more effectively with partners in the region that are working on suicide prevention strategies, post-event services and mental health research?

Partners are closer than you might think. For instance, The Westgate Unit at HMP Frankland is a therapeutic, personality disorder treatment service based in a high security prison setting.  The Unit helps prisoners diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder who are most at risk of self-harm and suicide. The unit has developed its own research on why different prisoners self-harm but is struggling with budget cuts and would welcome support from academics in developing and conducting further research. You might counter that this is not public health, but given the significant impact of mental health on the UK economy, the NHS and, last but not least, the impact on families and communities, I would argue that this is a unique opportunity for Fuse to get involved.

Our region already has a wealth of clinical expertise available on mental health: the Mental Health Research Group (MHRG) is a joint initiative of the Tees Esk Wear Valleys (TEWV) NHS Foundation Trust and Durham University, in which clinicians, academics and service users, including young people, collaborate to improve local health services. The group recently showcased their research during their annual conference. Unfortunately, Fuse is not a partner in this network. However, clinical staff in the Trust are keen to develop their research skills and contribute to a better understanding of mental health issues and interventions in the North East and would welcome collaborative research with Fuse.

This might be a good time to ask: should Fuse put mind over matter when it comes to mental health?

Who needs nudging, shoving, and shaming? Individuals or government?

Guest post by Victoria McGowan, Post-Doctoral Research Associate at Teesside Uni, Alcohol & Public Health Research Team

I recently attended International Society for Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity (ISBNPA) conference in Edinburgh (see #ISBNPA2015 on twitter). The conference was a great event and I’m very grateful to Teesside University for supporting my attendance.

Conferences have a tendency to be sedentary affairs and can often have limited opportunities for physical activity or even just standing during sessions. However, I was delighted to see that the conference organisers had marked out significant space for standing during sessions. Not only that, but there was the opportunity for yoga and health walks early every morning as well as lessons in ceilidh dancing at lunch time and a walk to Arthur’s Seat as part of the social programme. It was quite a physically active, physical activity conference.

Lunch time ceilidh dancing

However, there were some interesting discussions about whether us delegates were being socially shamed or nudged into partaking in physical activity during the conference. The conference opened with Professor Nanette Mutrie describing how she’d spotted one of her own researchers using the escalator as opposed to the stairs and encouraged delegates to give standing ovations to all speakers in an attempt to get us on our feet more. Although I found the level of physical activity on offer a refreshing change from being largely sedentary, I was slightly unnerved about the underlying social shaming.

I’m a strong advocate for informed choice, I love posters on stairs telling me how many calories I’ll burn by walking up them but I also love having the option of taking the escalator. There were stories of academics taking photos of people using the escalator to shame them for not using the stairs. It was interesting to watch the Mexican wave of delegates standing to applaud, a few individuals would stand and then row after row behind them followed suit… until it came to me and I would sit in defiance. Why did I stay seated? Because I have a choice and honestly, I don’t like being socially shamed into doing something. Yes, I agree obesity, nutrition, and physical activity researchers should not be hypocritical and practice what they preach. However, we also need to be mindful that we’re working with people who are more concerned about paying their rent, whether their children need new school shoes, zero hours contracts, whether they can get an appointment with their GP, the list goes on. Yes, taking the stairs may improve our health if we use them regularly but we have to understand that some individuals choose the unhealthier option due to a whole host of external pressures. Lecturing these individuals about taking the stairs may fall on deaf ears or, as in my case, may lead to defiance. I used the escalator on occasion because it was quicker for me to walk up/down the escalator to dash between sessions and avoid the crammed stairs.

There are other reasons why individuals choose the less healthy option and we need to understand these external pressures rather than shaming people into taking the stairs. As Professor Alan Batterham rightly pointed out in his debate with Professor Stuart Biddle we’re evolutionary predisposed to conserve energy whenever possible so sometimes we may choose the escalator. However, we may choose the stairs if we’re provided with information on why it’s good for our health, or if we alter the environment to make healthy choices easier. But please don’t shame us into choosing one option or the other as this could lead to unintentional detrimental consequences of purposeful rebellion. Yes, I’m aware of the obesity ‘epidemic’, but I’m also aware this is caused by factors which are outside of individual control. Professors Ted Schrecker and Clare Bambra’s book How Politics Makes Us Sick shows how the rise in neoliberal policies in the UK and US are associated with rises in obesity and health inequalities.

Inequalities are having the greatest impact on health

Kylie Ball highlighted this point at the end of her keynote speech, yes we need to help improve nutrition and physical activity BUT we also need to help reduce inequalities in nutrition and physical activity. Inequalities are having the greatest impact on the nation’s health, not occasionally taking the escalator.

It’s time to nudge, shove, and shame our government, not individuals, into reducing health inequalities and improving overall public health.

Did you enjoy reading this post? If so, please vote for Fuse in the UK Blog Awards 2016 by clicking here

Setting resolutions or finding solutions?

Posted by Dr Joanne-Marie Cairns, Fuse Post-Doctoral Research Associate at Durham University

So it’s National Childhood Obesity week and yet again we are surrounded by plenty of public health campaigns promoting us to lead healthier lives – be more physically active, join the gym, lose weight, eat and cook more healthily as well as problematic media rhetoric such as ‘beat the bulge’ and de-moralising and stigmatising imagery typically of overweight or obese children on scales or eating junk food. How is this helpful? This will only serve to further exacerbate the situation rather than help to bring about effective and sustainable solutions to not only help those who wish to become more active and lose weight but promote healthier population health more widely.

I am heartened to hear that Head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, has called for a national conversation to be held and a joined-up approach which has started to think about regulating food and drink companies. In my opinion this is long overdue. We may have a degree of individual ‘choice’ but how much choice do we really have when we are surrounded by (and in some places bombarded with) advertisements, local take away shops, overly-priced fresh nutritious food compared to the tempting ‘bogof’ (buy one get one free) offers which typically tempts us into getting double the amount of unhealthy snacks, often at a fraction of the price it would cost to get healthier options?

I came across this image as I was searching through websites related to National Childhood Obesity week on http://www.noaw.org.uk/about/ with reference to National Obesity week earlier on this year.

While I am sympathetic to this message which encourages us to make these positive changes I am also sceptical about the effectiveness of doing these alone. Repeatedly research studies have shown that educational and behavioural interventions have limited and short-term effectiveness, so why do we continue to focus on the individual rather than looking at the environment within which the individual is placed?

So I urge you, instead of making yet another individualised ‘resolution’ this coming New Year (which will come around before you know it!) to lose weight or exercise more, why don’t we collectively put our efforts together by standing up and protesting about the lack of resources or opportunities within our localities to be able to lead healthier lives and be more physically active? For example, if you have children in schools ask yourself (or better yet ask the school directly) the question: what is the school doing to not only promote healthier food and physical activity but to actually enable this to happen by creating school environments that support children to do this? Or what are supermarkets doing to help us to afford to buy fresh and nutritious food and drink that isn’t going to cost a fortune? Or write to your local MP to ask the government to recognise the wider issues that can prevent even those of us with the best of intentions from eating more healthily and increasing our exercise. Childhood obesity is not the responsibility of the child/family, since ‘responsibility’ infers that we have ‘control’ over something. It is rather a societal consequence, and therefore society should bear the responsibility for finding a solution.

Jo Cairns and Professor Clare Bambra have produced a Fuse brief entitled: What is the most effective way to reduce inequalities in childhood obesity?

Did you enjoy reading this post? If so, please vote for Fuse in the UK Blog Awards 2016 by clicking here

Collaborative research: agreeing to disagree?

Posted by Peter van der Graaf

Fuse sponsored a parallel session at the Faculty of Public Health conference last week in Gateshead, chaired by Professor John Ashton CBE, President, UK Faculty of Public Health. The session focused on the challenges and opportunities of collaborative research between academics, health practitioners and decision makers.

The four papers presented in the session outlined different challenges in collaborative research: Alyson Learmonth, reviewing Health and Wellbeing Strategies in the North East, highlighted the diversity in priorities between different areas, making it difficult to focus and combine resources across local authorities.

Silvia Scalabrini showed that, in spite of dedicated health economic support from academics to local public health teams in prioritising their investment and resources, the use of these formal tools was met with resistance by elected members who put a higher value on other sources of information, such as stories from residents.

I highlighted limits to collaborative working through a mismatch in timescales, funding and interests. For example, academics showing limited enthusiasm for applied research due to a lack of incentives within their institution, which put a higher value on high quality publications and research council funding.

Fuse Director Professor Ashley Adamson talked about the challenges in setting up data sharing agreements with different local authorities to access National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP) data, in spite of positive support and demand for the research from local government.

Listening to these presentations one might wonder whether collaborative working is really possible. At the same time, each presentation offered examples of where it was achieved and made a difference. For instance, Alyson Learmonth's appreciative enquiry demonstrated common interests between Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) in giving each child the best start in life and in the social determinants of health, particularly interventions around education and housing.

Silvia Scalabrini highlighted the usefulness of the Portsmouth Scoring Card, developed by Austin, Edmundson-Jones, and Sidhu (2007)* for local authorities to prioritise their spending. I reflected on the value of responsive research services, such as AskFuse, to provide backstage negotiation spaces for what constitutes useful evidence. Professor Adamson discussed the benefits of matching data from the NCMP with local intelligence to increase the effectiveness of child obesity interventions and their evaluations.

I’m wondering where this leaves us? In spite of problems in setting priorities, even agreeing on the tool to do this, limits to willingness and capacity among academics and public health practitioners to collaborate on research projects, and barriers in data sharing once a project has been agreed, the different examples made it clear that not collaborating was simply not an option.

Public health practitioners have limited resources and lack the capacity to analyse and interpret data, while academics are increasingly required to demonstrate the impact of their research and lack an understanding of the context and processes in which evidence is used in practice. Working together is a must to ensure that public health can provide an answer to the questions it is currently being asked.

Moreover, the number of participants from academia and practice at the conference session, demonstrates that there is a clear appetite to work together on these issues as long as we are able to provide the conversation spaces for this.


*Reference. Austin, D., Edmundson-Jones, P. and Sidhu, K. (2007) Priority setting and the Portsmouth scorecard: prioritising public health services: threats and opportunities. Available at: http://www.publichealthconferences.org.uk/health_services_2007/presentations.php

Did you enjoy reading this post? If so, please vote for Fuse in the UK Blog Awards 2016 by clicking here

Go for the plums!

Posted by Mark Welford, Fuse Communications Officer

The title of this post was the provocative take home message from a session on ‘Writing for the media and Public Health Today’ at the Faculty of Public Health (FPH) conference held at the Sage in Gateshead earlier this week.

Public Health Today is the quarterly magazine for FPH members, featuring a range of articles from topical news items, to in-depth interviews with key public health figures. It is distributed to over 3,300 public health professionals in the UK and internationally.

Led by Richard Allen, Productions Editor of the magazine, the session aimed to give attendees an idea of what he and his team are looking for from contributors. The FPH want to hear about your research, but there are ways in which you can make it more likely that what you provide ends up in the magazine. Much of this also applies to the media and providing journalists with stories through press releases.

As the title says: ‘go for the plums’. Hit readers with the most important, unexpected or unusual fact, anecdote, or quote first. Your top line may not be the most important message but the ‘sweetie on the top’ designed to draw readers in and convince them to read on.

The first sentence should get across the key message and/or provide a brief summary of the research in 20 words. Many articles that the FPH receive start from the beginning. Instead, reverse history and put the background in later with the conclusion first.

Be concise. Richard and his team are looking for articles of 550 words – stick to the word count. Remove the long words and jargon, the public health and management speak. Use everyday language and write acronyms in full in the first instance. The news stories on the BBC website provide a good example of this.

Include short quotes that add opinion or emotion. This humanises the story and brings it to life. Write as though you’re describing your research to an educated friend.

Each issue of Public Health Today is themed. June's edition is on sex. The themes of future issues aren’t easy to find but I did eventually discover them in the latest FPH e-bulletin.

The special features for the other editions in 2015 are:

• September: Disasters & emergencies
• December: Healthcare public health

An editorial board decide on the themes for the year ahead at a meeting in December. Could you suggest a theme?

Here are Richard’s top tips in a handy list:

1. Go for the plums!
2. Is there anything ‘new’ in my article – what’s current?
3. Is there anything unusual or unexpected about it?
4. Would this be of interest and understandable to anyone outside of public health?
5. What, who, when, where and why?
6. Reverse history 
7. Be concise
8. Keep sentences short
9. Avoid jargon
10. Avoid management speak
11. Avoid acronyms
12. Use quotes to provide insight, not information
13. Stick to the word count
14. No references /footnotes
15. No multiple bylines
16. Provide contact details

Richard, like me, was once a journalist and it’s helpful to be reminded of good practice. So I’m going to follow no.13 and keep to the 550 word limit.

Did you enjoy reading this post? If so, please vote for Fuse in the UK Blog Awards 2016 by clicking here

A Munich alcohol gathering with a difference

Guest post by John Mooney, senior lecturer in Public Health at The University of Sunderland

The mention of the German city of Munich and alcohol in the same sentence normally conjures up the image of a buxom serving wench in traditional Bavarian costume plying glasses of beer during Octoberfest, a prominent component of which is the Munich Beer Festival. Announcing to colleagues therefore that I was attending an alcohol public health conference in the city last week met with a few raised eyebrows – together with enquiries about whether I had got the wrong month!

This was most certainly not the case – for in addition to hosting the G7 conference in the nearby Bavarian mountains at the weekend, Munich was also last week’s venue for the 41st Meeting of the Kettil Brunn Society’s Alcohol Epidemiology conference. Established in 1986, the Kettil Bruun Society (KBS) is an international organisation of scientists engaged in research on the social aspects of alcohol use and alcohol problems. Given that the task of containing alcohol harm is now a truly worldwide public health challenge, the Society aims to promote social and epidemiological research on alcohol in a spirit of international cooperation and information exchange.

As a second time attendee, this year’s conference programme was just as packed and varied as the 2104 meeting in Turin – and the start of summer proper in Southern Germany ensured that temperatures were also comparable! Morning plenary sessions focused on current topical debates such as the relative merits of abstinence over harm reduction approaches, the latter including the controversial Dutch experiment where alcoholics who were resistant to treatment received payment partly in beer for undertaking community work.

The conference setting in the University of Munich’s Institute for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy meant that the psychological and mental health dimensions surrounding alcohol misuse were never far from the surface. Indeed accurately remembering the route to the Alzheimer room (named after the eminent psychiatrist himself who was once based at the Medical School), was going to be the first challenge of my own presentation session!

The luxury of a week-long conference allows for a 10 minute speaking slot for all accepted abstracts (KBS is a poster free zone!). Another unconventional aspect compared to most other conferences is the requirement to submit a full draft paper of your work before the conference. In addition to offering delegates the chance to view your paper through the conference website, this also enables your allocated discussant the opportunity to prepare some constructive criticism of your work (discussants are each allocated two papers in one of the parallel sessions). Most attendees therefore are allocated a discussant slot as well as their own presentation, so the required preparation beforehand is substantially greater than for most conferences where pulling together some slides the weekend before can often suffice!

Among the many highlights of the parallel sessions I attended were the rising public awareness and policy implications of alcohol’s contribution to cancer risk (where frequent drinkers are less likely to perceive the risk); the perhaps unsurprising enthusiasm that the alcohol industry shows towards presenting alcohol predominantly as a ‘lifestyle choice’ as opposed to a risk factor; the usefulness of sewage monitoring for estimating population-level consumption alcohol; and the potential value of reformatting alcohol labels to enhance awareness of drink strengths and associated health risks.

Another annual characteristic of the KBS Conference is a strong presence by the Sheffield alcohol research group, where I had the considerable pleasure of working for two years and on which work (on local alcohol policies) my own presentation was based. Other presentations from the Sheffield Group included gender differences in the effectiveness of alcohol policies; the need for more transparency in setting drinking guidelines; socio-economic gradients in UK alcohol harms across the four constituent countries and also social gradients in specific cancers, attributable to disparities in tobacco and alcohol use.

Now based within the Fuse collaboration at the University of Sunderland, there should be no shortage of opportunities for continuing my research interests in alcohol and fruitful collaboration with expert centres such as Sheffield and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS). The North East of England, very much like my native Scotland, is acknowledged to have among the highest public health burdens attributable to alcohol consumption in the UK and is also pursuing some of the most innovative policy solutions such as cumulative impact policies and a late night levy, as well as a very pro-active third sector in the form of Balance North East.

Of course, the Fuse collaboration also includes Newcastle Universities Institute of Health and Society acknowledged for extensive research into the effectiveness of screening and brief interventions for hazardous drinking as well as the alcohol and public health research team at Teeside University (TeamAlphaTees). The North East is well placed therefore for research into all aspects of alcohol harm treatment and prevention, although as yet, it has no October festival – which is probably something else to be grateful for!

Forthcoming events:

• Future Kettil Bruun Society Meetings: See Website for details
• June 2016 Stockholm, Sweden
• June 2017 Sheffield , UK
• Also for all practitioners and policymakers:
• UKCTAS Alcohol Policy & Practice Course at University of Sheffield / 1-4 September 2015.

Author affiliation
John Mooney FFPH, is a senior lecturer in Public Health at The University of Sunderland. He was previously a research associate with the Alcohol Research Group at The University of Sheffield, funded by the UK NIHR School of Public Health Research, which also funded his attendance and participation at this year’s KBS Conference

The Troubled families Programme: what's health got to do with it?

Guest post by Stephen Crossley, PhD student in the School of Applied Social Sciences at Durham University

A couple of weeks ago, the expansion of the Troubled Families Programme was formally announced during the Queen’s Speech. This formality came two years after the government itself announced their plans to expand it, around 10 months after they announced further details such as the criteria to be called a ‘troubled family’ under Phase 2 of the programme, and around six months after some local authorities started working with ‘troubled families’ as part of the expanded programme.

Another troubled family?

There have been numerous criticisms of different elements of the Troubled Families Programme since the programme was announced in the wake of the riots in England in 2011, with David Cameron promising to ‘turn around’ the lives of the most troubled and troublesome families in England by the end of the Parliament that finished in May 2015. Ruth Levitas and Jonathan Portes highlighted that the figure of 120,000 ‘troubled families’ used by the government (characterised as ‘neighbours from hell’ in the prime Minister’s launch speech), actually referred to research published four years earlier on families thought to be experiencing multiple disadvantages such as maternal mental health, poverty, material deprivation, poor quality or overcrowded housing. Levitas argued it was a discursive strategy which succeeded in feeding vindictive attitudes towards the poor.

A report carrying a series of interviews with families, written by Louise Casey, the senior civil servant in charge of the programme, was criticised for its lack of ethical process and the government admitted it was a ‘dipstick’ process which didn’t meet the government criteria for research and therefore didn’t require ethical approval. My own investigations revealed that a ‘survey’ used by Casey to highlight the need for ‘radical reform’ didn’t actually exist. In a series of speeches during 2013, Casey told audiences of a survey which showed that, in one deprived area in the North East, not one out of 3000 children had attended a dentist for a routine check-up, but that 300 had presented at A&E for emergency dental care. The survey was, in fact, an anecdote shared during a meeting about a different government programme, which Casey never thought to check before sharing with audiences, preferring instead to tell them it ‘encapsulates the problem’ of ‘troubled families’ in a single example. Casey also told the 2013 RCGP conference that these 120,000 families ‘dominated NHS budgets. That’s the long and the short of it’, which isn’t exactly true either.

To date, however, health has played a relatively minor part in the Troubled Families Programme (TFP) and health issues were not mentioned in either the criteria for families in Phase 1, or the outcomes expected in order for their lives to be considered ‘turned around’. But this is starting to change. The government published a report in July 2014 entitled: ‘Understanding Troubled Families’ which included information on the characteristics of families entering the programme in its early stages (my brief (Mis)understanding Troubled Families is available here). The data showed that the majority of the families being worked with under the banner of the TFP were not particularly anti-social, weren’t serial offenders and most of the children were in education, albeit not all of the time. In fact, the only characteristics that could be applied to a majority of families included in the report were that they were white, they lived in social housing, they had an adult on out-of-work benefits (although we don’t know why) and they had a family member with a serious health issue or a disability. In short, and if any personal characteristic can adequately explain unemployment, these families were probably more likely to be out of work because of health, disability or caring issues than because of any intergenerational culture of worklessness.

In the expanded second phase of the programme, ‘parents and children with a range of health problems’ is included as one of the six criteria for families, who have to hit two of the criteria to be labelled ‘troubled’. Other criteria include ‘children who need help’ and ‘children who have not been attending school regularly’. These vague criteria are open to interpretation and councils will be encouraged to go out and find ‘troubled families’ in order to ‘turn them around’ (or make ‘significant and sustained progress’ in phase 2) and claim the cash bonus, via the Payment By Results process, for doing so. A health bulletin on ‘troubled families’ was also published when the new criteria were announced, highlighting the health related issues some ‘troubled families’ faced, and a ‘leadership statement’ followed shortly after, accompanied by information on skills and training and interim guidance on data sharing amongst partner agencies. With health visitors and school nurses now under the remit of local authorities in England, it is likely that many will become involved with the TFP.

All of these developments should concern health professionals. The TFP assumes that the answer to the families problems lie firmly within the four walls of the family home, with a strong rhetorical focus on ‘getting in through the front door’ and working with the family ‘from the inside out’. In short, there is no room in the narrative for wider determinants of people’s circumstances. Its alleged success has never been proven. There is scant evidence to justify such an approach and it is unlikely that having a determined, non-specialist key worker will make much difference to many of the health problems ‘troubled families’ experience. The programme is a good example of what David Hunter and Jenny Popay and others have called ‘lifestyle drift’, where the focus of interventions drifts towards attempting to change individual behaviour, despite the wealth of evidence pointing to other solutions. But this ‘responsibilization’ strategy is also a punitive, stigmatising discourse which is targeting some of the poorest and most vulnerable families in England, telling them that they are the architects of their own misfortune and that they just need to try harder and follow a routine. A simultaneously fascinating and alarming article in the BMJ recently, exploring the role of psychology in government workfare programmes highlights that this approach is not a unique aspect of the government’s welfare ‘reforms’. Health professionals should tread carefully.

Stephen Crossley's first peer-reviewed article on ‘troubled families’ can be found here.

Did you enjoy reading this post? If so, please vote for Fuse in the UK Blog Awards 2016 by clicking here

Complexity in health organisations: setting ourselves up for chaos or enjoying the simple things in life?

Posted by Peter van der Graaf

Can applying a complexity lens to health organisations be more than an academic exercise with practical applications for service delivery? This question was central to a two-day meeting last week in London at the Health Foundation between researchers, policy makers and health practitioners. The event was organised by The Knowledge to Action Group (KTAG), an international team of senior academics and coordinated by two leading members of Fuse’s Complex Systems research programme, Prof David Hunter and Dr Emily Henderson. The group brought together the crème de la crème of health research and knowledge mobilisation, with about 40 handpicked participants from across the UK to debate a green paper on the topic (which is a tentative government report and consultation document of policy proposals for debate and discussion).

The essence of this meeting was about getting to grips with the consequences of doing research and developing interventions in a world that is inherently complex (which is not to be confused with just being complicated!). The green paper (Knowledge-to-Action: Addressing Complex Problems in Health Systems, May 28/29 2015) described complex systems as non-linear; dynamic; and having no single point of control.  Because of these characteristics, outcomes in a complex system are unpredictable and resistant to interventions. So are health systems really complex? Anyone trying to get research evidence into practice will quickly discover that knowledge mobilisation is prone to all the characteristics outlined above for complex systems.

In one of the breakout sessions during the event the difference between complicated and complex was illustrated with the example of building a rocket versus raising a child.  Building a rocket is complicated but will lead to a predictable outcome (successful launch) if all the different pieces are correctly assembled according to the guidebook. However, raising a child is complex (as many parents will testify) and often leads to chaos in many academic households. This is bad news for academic parents and health service managers: you cannot steer the thing (but you are still accountable for it) and even if you find the solution to a problem in the system it is likely not to work when you try it again. The dynamic nature of systems means that what works in one context or at one point in time may not work the same as the system changes.

How do you work within such a system? Fortunately, the event provided four case studies of research projects where the academics had managed to work within a complex health system to produce change across different areas, often in co-production with policy makers and health practitioners. The authors of the green paper distilled four themes from these case studies to inform future research and interventions:

1. the balance of central and distributed authority in organisations and systems; 
2. the importance of emergence (continuous learning and adaptation); 
3. the need for co-produced knowledge; and 
4. a range of leadership positions and styles.

These four themes were discussed in more detail in various breakout sessions over the two days.

Participants embraced the spirit of the event and discussed a wide range of topics (from the need for a critical discourse department to finding positive deviants), whose relationships with the four themes were sometimes unclear and mostly unpredictable. Nevertheless, some key messages emerged from the event that will soothe the nerves of academics and service managers. By visualising complex organisations as “patterns of conversations between interdependent individuals” (as quoted in a presentation from Allan Best on the first day), working in complex systems becomes conversation management and engagement. According to the researchers involved in the successful case studies, this works all the better outside the normal context of everyday work by taking commissioners to the pub or baking a cake for a meeting with service managers to get the conversation really going. Isn’t it ironic that to work inside complex systems, one needs to go back to basics in a more simple system?

52 weeks in public health research – the (very) rough guide

Guest post by Avril Rhodes

Remember the natty idea to take photographs representing a year of working in public health research? Well, how about a quick analysis of what we saw, snapped and submitted? Here are the exciting and indeed revealing results.

After looking at 198, or was it 200, images a portrait of researchers concerns emerges – not exactly Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, so much as the Rhodes' hierarchy of academic obsessions.

Bottom or is it top of the pile comes food. It’s official – no less than 42 pictures, close up and distance shots, ranging from individual snacks, drinks and meals to full size conference spreads and displays. I felt slightly queasy after looking at them all. Feed those academics!

The next most important thing is to feed the mind. Any passing course, lecture, symposium and the like weighing in with 20 pictures. But there’s lots more that get close to the mind-feeding category although making more cameo-esque appearances, such as degree ceremonies, IT, stands and posters, books, theses, work in progress and journal covers. Publication definitely counts. Completing work even more.

The office – no not the TV series, comes next, with 16 images, inflated perhaps with opportunities created by moving office and the delights of standing desks and desks tied to exercise apparatus. I would not have dreamed that taking a picture of the immediate work environment was so important. 

Travel ranks highly but possible to count in different ways. Railway stations are significant at 11 pictures, especially Newcastle Central – of world significance as stations go, but that’s just me. Car travel featured just slightly with a nod to cycling. Active travel (good and bad) is clearly a source both of delight, when stairs get favoured, and frustration, when lifts are promoted. Exercise equipment got a decent look in too. 

Signs and marketing really played on the collective academic mind. Labelling, the impact of shop placements and advertising, spelling mistakes, unintended humour, public health messaging, came in with around 12 images. Some of this felt a bit judgemental, when it came to cheap unhealthy food signs. Not too many wider determinants of health, it has to be said.

 

Field work related images scored a fairly respectable 9.

 

Culture kept creeping in. Museum visits, architecture, music, sculpture were all there. Nature played a relatively small part, but researchers did appreciate the cute, the beautiful, office plants and the changing seasons.

 

Then a whole rag bag of one-offs. Some were clearly novelty items or personal reminiscences, and some seemed like stream of consciousness, or pet concerns.

Curiously, the academic world was quite short of pictures of people, except in crowd shots doing serious lecture type stuff. It looked a camera shy world. So what do we have? A hard working, semi-office bound, nomadic community that likes writing, learning, unable to switch off form public health even when undertaking a leisure activity or just walking around the town, that enjoys high art and longs to sniff a flower. Is this what we are? The camera apparently doesn’t lie.

Public Health Post-election: What is its future?

Posted by David J Hunter, Professor of Health Policy and Management, Durham University and Fuse Deputy Director

The Conservatives’ election victory has brought both old and new faces into the ministerial team at the Department of Health. Jane Ellison returns as a junior minister and will retain the public health brief thereby bringing a degree of continuity to the post. She was growing into the post in the run-up to the election and public health insiders speak well of her.

Public Health Minister Jane Ellison

The fact there has been extensive coverage of the other ministerial appointments in health excluding hers might say a great deal not only about the place of public health in the government’s health priorities but about the level of importance the media attaches to the subject.

Clearly the funding difficulties plaguing the NHS will be uppermost in Jeremy Hunt’s (back as Secretary of State for Health) in-tray with the integrated health and social care agenda not far behind. But the new government is also committed to implementing the Five Year Forward View (5YFV) produced by the NHS Chief Executive, Simon Stevens, last October. Herein lies the hope for public health and surely the near certainty that it will occupy a high place on the government’s list of priorities.

Public health did not feature prominently in the Conservative Party’s manifesto and no major new initiatives were promised. None of the parties had much to say about public health during the campaign. And yet the new government is going to come under significant pressure to up its game over the next five years with the call for ‘a radical upgrade in prevention and public health’ featuring prominently in the 5YFV.

Not only that, but Simon Stevens rarely misses an opportunity in public to stress the importance of public health, admonishing successive governments for their failure to implement the Wanless ‘fully engaged scenario’.  Since the NHS failed to heed the warning, it ‘is on the hook for the consequences’. Wanless wanted a transformed NHS that put health and not illness first.

The 5YFV urges the NHS to redeem itself over the wasted years by becoming an advocate for ‘hard hitting action’ on avoidable lifestyle-related illnesses. Because these put added pressure on health care services, tackling them at source has to be a high priority if a universal service free to all at the point of use is to be sustained.

The latest projections from WHO published a week ago show that Europe faces an obesity crisis by 2030 and that urgent action is needed by governments. In the UK, 33% of women are forecast to be obese by 2030 compared with 26% in 2010. For men, the figures are 36% and 26% respectively. The figures are worse in some other WHO member states with only The Netherlands doing better and remaining stable.

As we know, although there is no silver bullet for tackling obesity restricting unhealthy food marketing is regarded as a key policy lever available to governments. Where this leaves the government’s responsibility deal approach to addressing key public health challenges is uncertain. Even if its critics are persuaded that it is working, the key question in the light of the WHO projections is whether it is working fast enough given the urgency of the crisis looming in under 15 years’ time.

Another key development concerns devolution within England and the Northern Powerhouse initiative. Local MP for Stockton South, James Wharton, has been made the first minister for the project. It builds on the DevoManc announcement earlier this year which put local government in charge of the NHS budget for the Greater Manchester region. Chancellor George Osborne, the architect of this experiment, in his first speech since the election will announce today similar devolved arrangements for the City regions, including Newcastle.

The move to devolve power and responsibility could have major implications for public health as local government will be able to pool budgets and adopt place-shaping policies to improve health and wellbeing and tackle the social determinants of health.

But the catch must be that these developments are occurring at a time when local government is on its knees. With no let up to austerity in sight and with further public spending cuts to come which will fall heavily on local government, the question has to be asked: is local government being set up to fail? Whatever the outcome, there will be significant implications for public health which cannot be predicted. Watch this space.

How active are pregnant women? Measuring the methods

Posted by Louise Hayes and Cath McParlin 

Louise and Cath are presenting on the subject of physical activity in pregnancy at the Fuse Phyical Activity Workshop tomorrow (15 May) at Sunderland University.

So we all know we should move a bit more to be more healthy and reduce our risk of getting diseases like diabetes. For a long time pregnancy was seen as a time when a woman could put her feet up, take it easy and ‘eat for two’. But not any longer! Guidance published over the last few years recommends no ‘pregnant pause’, but rather that pregnant women should aim to achieve at least 30 minutes of activity of at least moderate intensity activity on most days of the week - just like the rest of us.

Part of the justification for this is that physical activity might help to reduce the risk of gestational diabetes (GDM) – that’s a type of diabetes that is diagnosed in pregnancy and (usually) resolves after the pregnancy. However, to some extent, the jury’s still out on whether or not being active when you’re pregnant really does reduce GDM.

Partly this is because we don’t really know how to measure physical activity accurately in pregnant women. The more precisely we can measure physical activity, the more accurately we can establish the relationship between it and GDM and other health outcomes.

Physical activity measurement is fraught with difficulty in any circumstances – it’s a challenge to measure such a complex and multi-faceted behaviour. Pregnancy brings additional challenges. With the development (and increasing affordability) of numerous objective methods for measuring physical activity – pedometers, heart rate monitors, accelerometers - objective measurement of physical activity in epidemiology is increasingly common. For pregnant women, however, the validity and acceptability of these methods remains unclear.

We have agonised over how best to measure physical activity in a pregnant population. What effect does the increasing size of the ‘bump’ have on the validity of waist-worn monitors? How good are monitors at recording low-level activity, common in pregnant women? What are appropriate cut-offs for different activity intensities in pregnant women?

The choice of measurement method has a huge influence on conclusions we draw about how active women are during pregnancy. We have compared questionnaire methods and accelerometry using different criteria to define activity intensity and found that, depending on the method used, we identify anything from 12% to 65% of pregnant women to be meeting the current guideline (30 minutes of at least moderate activity per day) in the first half of pregnancy.

We’re looking forward to discussing the whys and wherefores of different methods of assessing physical activity with the experts attending the Fuse PA Group Workshop at Sunderland University tomorrow (Friday 15 May).

Party manifestoes, part 2: A war on junk food?

Guest post by Avril Rhodes

The Fuse blog has seen pieces on the marketing of junk food near supermarket checkouts in recent weeks. Interestingly, whilst all the political Parties profess many policies related to children and young people, this is a specific topic where they are silent. Perhaps it’s too micro an issue or maybe involves dealing with too many big business interests. Who knows? However, I wouldn’t wish to be called cynical and neither would our potential political masters, who are working hard on the junk food agenda…to varying degrees.

Conservatives will:

• Act to reduce childhood obesity (how?) 
• Continue to promote clear food information (not all that clear an aim, on reflection) 
• Introduce a national evidence based diabetes prevention programme (sounds interesting) 
• Invest more in primary care to prevent health problems (needs more detail)

Labour will:

• Set a new national ambition to improve the uptake of physical activity (and this means…?) 
• Set maximum permitted levels of sugar, salt and fat in foods marketed substantially to children (assuming we know what these foods are, and can get over the qualifier “substantially” without disappearing in a legislative quagmire, this, could, in the end improve the offer at the proverbial check out)

Liberal Democrats will:

• Restrict marketing of junk food to children, including restricting advertising before 9.00pm, and maintain the ‘5 A DAY’ policy (more specific, but perhaps would have the unintended consequence of driving the advertising onto the internet, and what about the argument that the 9.00pm watershed is an anachronism in light of current TV viewing technology?)
• Encourage traffic light labelling of food and publication of information on calorie, fat, sugar and salt content in restaurants and takeaways (and would this be better than dealing with the check-out offer? Or are people going out already committed to a more unhealthy option in the interests of convenience?)

Greens will:

• Extend VAT at the standard rate to less healthy foods, including sugar, and spend the money raised on subsidising a third of the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables. This, it is stated, could prevent 5,000 premature deaths a year. (A bold one this. Could the money raised be tracked to ensure this happened? What about ensuring the quality of the subsidised produce? Who provided the calculations on lives saved?)

Before you despair and think that there are more questions than answers, there is some good news here. All the parties (well except perhaps UKIP, who don’t discuss junk food, though are loud on backing British farming and fishing) have got the message that action needs to be taken about what our food contains. This should encourage the world of public health research. 

All views expressed are exclusively those of the author.

Party manifestoes, part 1: Four lessons to untangle the public health policies

Guest post by Avril Rhodes

Hung over by the election talk? Worn down by the TV debates? Well how about reading the manifestoes? Be honest with yourself, when did you last read a manifesto? The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto is 158 pages, but the remaining largest national parties (Conservative, Labour, Green and UKIP) make do with around 70 to 80ish pages. And the public health policies are all over the place, under welfare, housing, transport, the environment, education, the economy and, occasionally, under health – so need some real work to find. However, that’s good, even if the party seems untroubled by, or hasn’t heard of, the wider determinants of health, at least they’re there…or somewhere. So, first lesson, be prepared to find a public health policy just about anywhere. 

Second lesson, be ready to make comparisons and choose your topic. Take the broad sweep and you will find the whole thing indigestible, and it may turn you into a floating voter after you’ve agreed and disagreed in about equal measure with all you’ve read.

So, here’s one of the easier examples: booze and fags.

• Conservatives will end open display of tobacco in shops, introduce plain packaging and support people “struggling with addictions”. The latter is swept up in a review in how best to treat long term yet treatable conditions, which include alcohol addictions. 
• Labour come in with a levy on tobacco firms to pay for NHS staff and they will target high strength, low cost alcohol products, their argument being that this fuels problem drinking. 
• The Liberal Democrats want to reduce smoking rates, complete the introduction of plain packaging and also make a tax levy on tobacco companies, in their case to contribute to the costs of health care and smoking cessation services. They will also monitor evidence on e-cigarettes and “ensure restrictions on marketing and use are proportionate and evidence based”. Finally they will introduce a minimum unit price (MUP) for alcohol. 
• The Greens will increase alcohol and tobacco taxes to help fund NHS spending increases and set a MUP of 50p. In a big section on road safety they will reduce the alcohol limit for drivers “to as close to zero as possible”. 
• UKIP under their “Save the Pub” campaign will provide tax breaks for micro-breweries, amend the smoking ban to give pubs the chance to open smoking rooms, “properly ventilated and separated”, oppose minimum unit pricing and reverse the plain packaging rules. All of this, which you will have guessed, is in a chapter on “Heritage and Tourism”.

Third lesson, consider what’s not been said. Reading between the lines I think it’s probable, for example that Labour and the Greens would favour plain packaging, the Liberal Democrats might consider 50p for their MUP, and Labour might be amenable to, say, reducing the blood alcohol limits. But we can’t be sure.

Fourth lesson, if you’re going to have a debate with your friends about what’s on offer, anticipate the arguments they might offer, like, for example, that good local pubs, will combat loneliness, provide employment, and maintain community cohesion. Does that end justify the means? Or is UKIP’s claim that 6,000 pubs closed due to the smoking ban and ending the alcohol duty escalator worth bringing in the smokers from the cold?

All views expressed are exclusively those of the author. 

A blether with Scotland’s fast food vendors

Guest post by Michelle Estrade, Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy (SCPHRP)

In June 2014 the Scottish Government published a voluntary framework, entitled Supporting Healthy Choices, which encourages the food industry to take action towards offering healthier food choices to consumers. The recommendations include guidance on promotional activities, healthier cooking practices, and types and portion sizes of foods offered. Just after the recommendations were drafted, I sat down with owners of independent fast food shops in lower-income neighbourhoods across Scotland to discuss how they felt about offering healthier menu options. They shared many thoughts on tradition, customer demand, and the deprived neighbourhood context, suggesting that food vendors in disadvantaged areas would need additional incentives and assistance in order to implement healthy menu guidelines and ensure that their customers don’t miss out on the potential benefits.

The shop owners I talked to took pride in their menus, using words like “traditional” and “proper” to describe the foods they sold. Because they felt food was being prepared the proper way, there was a sense of reluctance to change cooking methods. One example was the use of traditional beef dripping for frying, rather than healthier oil alternatives. During our conversation, the food vendor I was interviewing looked at me quizzically and asked: “I mean, how can we say we’re traditional if we’re cooking in palm oil or rapeseed oil?”

Most places I visited had a well-developed sense of niche, which was a common reason for offering only certain types of foods and not others. When I asked about the possibility of adding other [healthier] options, a fish and chip shop manager gave me a cheeky smile and quipped: “…they’re not coming here because they want fruit.” Again and again, the food vendors I talked to explained that they needed to respond to customer demand in order to keep their clients; competition was described as “cut-throat”, and the fear of losing business was palpable.

Indeed, price was viewed as a major barrier to offering healthier options to current clientele. The owner of a sandwich shop shared a personal example of the dilemma: “I don’t allow my kids to have fizzy juice, so I dinnae really like having it. I’d like to buy fresh juice, but it’s so expensive, you wouldn’t make any money. With the price you would have to charge, they wouldnae want to buy it.” Another told me: “We’re barely making a profit just now. If we were anywhere else we’d be able to charge more, but in [this neighbourhood], most of our customers are on a limited budget...”

I went into this project assuming that the major problem I would uncover would be a lack of awareness and knowledge about healthy eating. All we would need to do is help food vendors realise how important it is to get people to make healthier food choices, and they would be eager to jump on board with guidelines like Supporting Healthy Choices. What I found though was a much more complex set of circumstances at play – a constant struggle to cope with economic pressures, intertwined with the enduring characteristics of the neighbourhoods in which these people did business. Reflection on this has helped me realise that perhaps what needed uncovering was my own lack of awareness about the pivotal role of environment and context. Too often, I think, researchers are eager to jump into intervention mode and change what is happening without first thoroughly understanding why it’s happening.

Michelle is presenting at the Fuse Quarterly Research Meeting - More than enough on our plates: tackling the takeaway food diet at source tomorrow (Thursday 30 April).

Whipping town planners into shape

Guest post by Michael Chang, Town & Country Planning Association

Obesity is climbing up the national and local government agenda, and following two previous seminal publications – the Foresight Report on reducing obesity in 2007 and the Marmot Review of health inequalities in 2010 – one of the many spotlights has now firmly fixed on town planners and the planning system.

So all eyes will be on town planners at the Fuse event – More than enough on our plates: tackling the takeaway food diet at source – on Thursday (30 April).

This blog will attempt to shed some light on what planning can, must, should and could do. Coming from a non-academic background and admittedly a town planner, I take a pragmatic but liberal view of the planning system. This is not surprising as I work for a charitable organisation which essentially championed good planning for healthy outcomes for people in the Victorian times through the building of two garden cities in Letchworth and Welwyn.

Planning is a legal mechanism tasked with a land use function and exists to ensure the sustainable use of a scarce resource that is the land and the natural environment. What we do is grounded in what planning law, dating back to the 1990s, allows us to do and what national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in 2012 requires us to do. Why do I emphasise these dates? Simple. Laws change and policies evolve. Of all the planning laws and policies we have had, there has never been an explicit reference or requirement to consider access to fresh healthy food. That is, until 2014 with the online Planning Practice Guidance which the government hailed as a triumph in condensing thousands of guidance into an accessible and evolving online guidance, and which supports the NPPF. In addition to having a section on health and wellbeing, it states:

The range of issues that could be considered through the plan-making and decision-making processes, in respect of health and healthcare infrastructure, include how: opportunities for healthy lifestyles have been considered (e.g. planning for an environment that …promotes access to healthier food).

Healthier food is of course not defined but at least planners are now strongly encouraged to consider food in planning.

Laws and policy frameworks haven’t stopped some enlightened local planning authorities in doing what they think is right for their local areas to use current planning powers to improve access to healthy food or rather, to restrict the proliferation of unhealthy land uses. We know there are dozens of councils now pursuing planning policies to prevent burgeoning shops serving unhealthy foods, albeit meeting increasing resistance from the food industry and also from within different sections of the planning profession. Actions in planning also take time: five years between the publication of Foresight (2007) to the first Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on takeaways in 2009 and the Greater London Authority’s takeaways toolkit in 2012. Also there are more than 350 local planning authorities across England, so we still have a long way to go.

The Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) published the Planning Healthy Weight Environments resource in 2014 which highlighted the following considerations regarding food in planning:

• Development avoids overconcentration of hot-food takeaways (A5 class use for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises) in existing town centres or high streets, and restricts their proximity to schools or other facilities for children and young people and families.
• Shops/markets that sell a diverse offer of food choices are easy to get to by walking, cycling or public transport.
• Leisure centres, workplaces, schools and hospitals with catering facilities have a healthier food offer for staff, students, and/or customers.
• Opportunities for supporting innovative approaches to healthy eating through temporary changes of use have been explored.
• Development maintains or enhances existing opportunities for food-growing, and prevents the loss of food-growing spaces.
• Opportunities are provided for households to own or have access to space to grow food – for example roof or communal gardens, or allotments.

So the key message of this blog is: there is actually no legal, or professional, basis that stops town planners from taking appropriate policy actions to promote healthier communities through the provision and access to fresh healthy food. Much of what is needed is a cultural change within the profession, more active support of colleagues in public health in the planning process, continuing advocacy by national organisations, and last but not least (especially where Fuse is concerned), translating valuable evidence from academia to a format planners can use.

Have we been had?

Guest post by Jean Adams, Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR)

Parents don’t like sweets at supermarket checkouts. The ‘guilt lane’, as it’s been called, seems designed to attract children in a place where they are a captive audience – you can’t just move away from the checkout when you have a trolley full of shopping that you need to pay for.

This consumer concern is what seems to have prompted many supermarkets to impose total, or partial, bans on checkout confectionary.

It was certainly a healthy dose of parental curiosity that prompted our recent study on food at checkouts in non-food stores. The lead author was in Primark with her pre-schoolers, noticed a LOT of sweets by the till, and started to wonder how pervasive a phenomenon this was.

We felt food at checkouts in non-food stores was a worthwhile thing to study for two reasons. Firstly, these are places where we assumed most people aren’t naturally thinking about food. Buying confectionary at a supermarket is, perhaps, appropriate. But at a clothes shop? Presumably most people don’t go into Primark to buy some energy-dense, nutrient-poor snacks. So any purchases they do make are unplanned and prompted entirely by the display, rather than, say, hunger. Secondly, a lot of campaigning attention has been devoted to #junkfreecheckouts in supermarkets. To some good effect. But if the problem has just shifted to other types of shops, then any war is not yet won.

So we enlisted the help of two medical students, who were keen to get some hands-on experience of public health research, and did a survey of all the non-food stores in the MetroCentre - which has the dubious accolade of being the second largest shopping centre in the UK (I’m sure it was the largest in Europe at some point).

Of 205 non-food stores in the MetroCentre, 32 of them, or 16%, had food within arm’s reach of the checkout queuing area. All these stores stocked less healthy checkout food, although about half of them also had foods that were not specifically identified as less healthy. This was mostly bottled water or chewing gum – so not exactly healthful! Overall more than four-fifths of checkout food was less healthy and would not be allowed to be advertised on children’s TV in the UK.

As well as making life easier for the parents of young children, there may well be health benefits of #junkfreecheckouts. Around the world, most checkout food really is ‘junk’ – soft drinks, and foods high in energy and salt, and low in vitamins and minerals. Checkout food may prompt impulse purchases and purchasing requests from children, which parents find hard to resist.

But, importantly, I’m not aware of any research that shows that people who see more checkout junk food eat more junk food, or that removing checkout junk food leads to changes in what people buy or eat. This is one of those absence of evidence, rather than evidence of absence situations – we just don’t know what effect checkout confectionary has on what kids eat.

There was an interesting discussion on the Food Programme recently suggesting that sales of confectionary from UK supermarkets were steady, or rising, despite many stores removing it from checkouts. Checkouts aren’t the only way to prompt impulse purchases in supermarkets. Prominent, end-aisle displays, and price promotions seem to be keeping sweets sales buoyant. At least for now.

This wasn’t what we meant: a prominent confectionary display opposite a #junkfreecheckout at my local supermarket (that pizza wasn’t mine!)

Which makes me wonder…have we been had? Have supermarkets taken confectionary off tills because it makes them look responsible and ‘part of the solution’, knowing full well it will have no effect on sales? And what might the consequences of that be for public health? Well, no change on the diet front. But what if supermarkets voluntarily choosing to remove checkout junk food, means that it also closes down a conversation on unhealthy food environments? Could the supermarkets keep referring to this non-change as a way of trumpeting how importantly they take health, and silencing any requests for further, serious, meaningful change?

I find this a bit scary. Some well-intentioned public health campaigning might have made things worse? I don’t know that it has. Maybe it hasn’t. Probably it hasn’t? Hopefully it hasn’t. Probably it’s just made no difference. At the very least, it makes life a bit easier for stressed out parents trying to get the shopping done and their kids to eat a healthy diet?