If you are going to give up smoking, this is a very good moment to do it

In today’s Fuse blog Rachel McIlvenna, from Public Health South Tees, writes about managing a local specialist stop smoking service during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Casting my mind back to when the news started reporting increasing numbers of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the UK feels like a lifetime ago. Chief on my mind pre-lockdown, was to re-emphasise the need for adhering to our robust infection control procedures, but also given the new threat to health, ensure we had sufficient stock of disposable gloves for clinic venues where there were no hand washing facilities. Looking back now, those days feel like a different era and my team, I and perhaps most people in the UK were unaware that our world was going to be turned upside down. 

In the weeks that followed things changed at a dizzying pace resulting in me activating our continuity arrangements earlier than anticipated, largely dictated by the shifting landscape that depended in part on what we heard from the Government’s daily press briefings but also from our strategy and plans as a Local Authority.

As the rates of infections started to increase exponentially, many services scurried to shut down for the foreseeable future and rightly so; everyone had to do their part to flatten the curve. We, as a service, didn’t have such a luxury by virtue of the fact that stopping support midway through a treatment pathway was not an option. The chances of a client successfully quitting smoking increase with regular behavioral support and uninterrupted access to treatments, like Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) and Champix tablets.

Being responsible for the care of over 200 clients during a pandemic needs careful consideration. Our contingency plans made provision to stop face-to-face consultations in March with interim arrangements to supply stop smoking treatments during the pandemic. This challenge was further amplified when we received guidance from the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training (NCSCT) about ceasing all face-to-face consultations immediately and further news that the local community hubs, where clinics would normally be held, were shutting down completely to the public. So, without a location where clients could come and pick up their prescriptions regardless of social distance measures in place, we had to adapt our plans. Eventually and after several phone calls, we managed to support most of the clients via telephone and put arrangements in place for collection of scripts.

It didn’t end there though, as we then had the concern of how we would support new clients who wished to stop smoking, particularly pregnant women who were referred from maternity. Constant in my mind was safeguarding my staff and the public, so I knew that a long-term solution needed to be sought to minimise risk. After talking to several colleagues on the pros and cons of electronic vouchers and other options, we settled on posting prescriptions directly to clients (1st Class and with trackable labels) as it was the least restrictive option.

The next challenge was to introduce this very new way of working to my team, by explaining and demonstrating why this approach was best in these circumstances. Thankfully, a close colleague had helped me to draft a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which was soon amended and rolled out. This new way of dealing with scripts hasn’t been without its drawbacks. Sometimes the prescriptions have been delayed in the post for up to 10 days, which has meant that the staff have had to think 2-3 weeks ahead to ensure clients don’t run out of medication. But it has meant that we have minimised risk and enabled the team to work remotely from home, without the need to come to a central location to arrange for medication or go out to pharmacies, which have seen an increased demand during the pandemic.

The last few weeks have now been spent amplifying the #Quit4Covid message, learning from areas like Hertfordshire, Sheffield and Newcastle, and putting our own spin on these messages to engage smokers. This has included sending proactive text messages to unsuccessful quitters, bespoke postcards to homes of known smokers (who have given consent) and using social media. To date, we have seen promising results with many smokers engaging, and I am hopeful that there will be more dividends in future weeks.

What has been insightful for me has been the opportunity to lead our fantastic team of nurses during this period and observe their reactions to the unprecedented changes in their way of working and providing support for smokers. As a manager, it has been a privilege to help them navigate and accept the new realities that COVID-19 presents to all of us. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not all been smooth sailing, there have been several minor blips with a fair dose of IT challenges, to name just one. In the last few weeks, I have felt a quiet steadying as my nurses have become more confident about the change in work practices that they were long accustomed to as clinical staff. The challenges of remote consultations have been accepted, as has the notion that for some clients our weekly or fortnightly contact is literally a lifesaving form of communication.

The emerging evidence around adverse outcomes for smokers with COVID has reinforced what I have believed for a long time. Supporting people to stop smoking is one of most important public health interventions and not just for a host of non-communicable diseases associated directly or indirectly with smoking, but now with the threat of a communicable disease like COVID-19. To echo the words of England’s Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Whitty to the Health Select Committee:

“If you are going to give up smoking, this is a very good moment to do it”

Rachel McIlvenna works as an Advanced Public Health Practitioner for Public Health South Tees and leads on tobacco dependency and long term conditions. Her portfolio also includes managing the in-house specialist stop smoking service, which includes a small team of vibrant nurse prescribers.

For information on stopping smoking in Middlesbrough / Redcar & Cleveland, visit: https://www.stopsmokingsouthtees.co.uk


Image attribution
3: "Dominic Raab Covid-19 Presser 06/04" by Number 10 via Flickr.com, copyright © 2020: https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/49742982126/ (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

COVID-19 has brought the “digital divide” to the fore

Posted by Gemma Wilson, Health Psychologist & Research Fellow in Applied Health, Northumbria University

With the onset of COVID-19 it seems that we are relying on technology even more than usual. Many of us are using technology as our main source of communication, such as for work meetings via Zoom, family chats on FaceTime, WhatsApp messaging, or sending photos. Online food shopping, ordered and delivered to your door, has become the norm. Internet banking and health services have become more important than ever, and online communication platforms are even allowing us to continue our hobbies and exercise. But not everyone has access to these tools to support their daily living and wellbeing at home. Even people with access to the technology may not have the skills to use platforms, such as Facebook, Skype or Zoom, which still leads to exclusion.

There is an ever-growing number of older adults using the internet and social media, with notable increased use across the UK, USA, and Europe over the last decade. However, older adults still remain less likely than younger people to use the internet and social media. That’s why we decided to do a piece of research that aimed to explore older adults’ experiences of using technology, including social media, to connect with others. Part of this study involved interviewing 20 people who were over 65 years old from across the UK, to understand how they used technology to communicate with others, and to consider what helps and hinders their use of technology. 

All participants in the study regularly used digital devices and social media, however, despite their regular use of technology, they still experienced five barriers to using it as a tool to connect with others:

1. Confidence
Some had low confidence, seeing themselves as novices and not “technology minded”, and some lacked patience with technology.

2. Fear
Some were fearful that they would break the devices, do something “wrong” that they couldn’t fix, or they were worried about privacy and misinformation.

3. Practical issues
Some experienced physical barriers, such as the size of text, or the buttons being too small.

4. Culture and communication
Cultural differences around communication impacted the way some of the participants used social media and their online connections. They worried about how they would come across or didn’t like the way others communicated using social media.

5. Social network
Finally, we also found that existing social groups and relationships were key in the older adults choosing to use technology and in helping to provide ongoing support. Often without this existing social network, they would not have even received a digital device, let alone started using it, or understanding how to maintain it.

The overall message that we took away from this research is that technology - even for those who use it on a regular basis - is still only a tool for social connection, a welcome tool, but only a tool, and it certainly isn’t a replacement for face-to-face communication. However, during COVID-19, technology must be a replacement for face-to-face communication, and is the best available way for us to remain connected with friends and family.

The reliance on technology since the onset of COVID-19 has brought the “digital divide” to the fore in the context of these barriers. Many will continue to rely heavily on technology during this uncertain period, and for as long as we are social distancing. During these measures, it is important that we consider people who do not have access to technology and are unable to rely on it in a way that others can, as well as those that do have access but continue to experience difficulties in its use. Specifically, due to no longer being able to rely on social groups and wider support networks for guidance in using technology. This lack of access significantly heightens inequalities for so many people in all of the ways discussed above.

To find out more about this study, the podcast “Ageing in a Digital World” is available to listen/download on the following platforms:

• Soundcloud
• Spotify
• iTunes

Dr Gemma Wilson is a Health Psychologist, and a Research Fellow in Applied Health at Northumbria University, Newcastle. Her research interests are in ageing, psychosocial wellbeing, digital inclusion, social participation, digital health. Contact Gemma at gemma.wilson@northumbria.ac.uk, or on Twitter via @drgemmawilson.

Research team: Dr Gemma Wilson, Mrs Jessica Gates, Dr Santosh Vijaykumar, Dr Deborah Morgan.

The research was funded by the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust.

Covid-19 and the legacy of Edward Jenner: a tale of two pathogens

Posted by Lesley Haley, AskFuse Research Associate, Teesside University 

2020 is going to be a momentous year in world history as the year that the Covid-19 pandemic changed all our lives.

Edward Jenner, English physician who discovered the smallpox vaccine

Coincidentally, this year also marks the 40th anniversary of a significant historic milestone for another deadly disease, but in this case, one which maimed, killed and shaped global history for the past three thousand years (Flight 2011). That disease was smallpox.

On the surface, there is nothing in common between a dead disease and a newly emerging one. But there are some aspects of the history of smallpox that resonate with the unfolding story of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Smallpox was still a killer when I was vaccinated against it in 1967 as part of a routine public health intervention, although it was no longer endemic in the UK. For my mother’s generation, the reality of smallpox was very stark. She experienced the panic of an outbreak in her home town of Glasgow during the war when she was only 10, and again when she was 16, when smallpox killed front-line staff treating infected patients at the local hospital.

Although in 1967 outbreaks in the UK of smallpox were getting rarer, the worldwide picture was very different. Smallpox was still endemic in many countries, maiming and killing an estimated 10-15 million people a year (Baxby 1999). This was despite the fact that Edward Jenner had first introduced a prototype inoculation against smallpox in 1798, had translated his theories and ideas into practice, and had a huge impact during his lifetime (the academic dream!).

One aspect of Jenner’s life and work bears closer scrutiny in light of the current Covid-19 pandemic, and particularly on the emerging debate surrounding the development of a new vaccine. During his lifetime, Jenner made his research, his ideas and his smallpox inoculations freely available to everyone, irrespective of who they were (Baxby 1999). Jenner and his contemporaries appreciated the commercial opportunities of his discovery, but he continued to give free inoculations to everyone who approached him at his surgery, despite the detrimental financial impact this had on his personal and professional life (Britannica 2020). He understood exactly what the implications of his discovery meant for the common good.

So if Jenner’s work was freely available, (and although certainly not perfect), why was smallpox still endemic in some countries in the world in 1967? Millward (2019) proposed that one of the main issues had been the lack of global “joined up thinking” in the approach towards smallpox eradication. It took until 1967 for countries where smallpox was not endemic to realise that they would always be at risk of continual and increasing numbers of smallpox outbreaks, if the disease was still endemic in other parts of the world. Wherever in the world there was smallpox outbreaks, it caused mass panic, strained public health systems to the limit, maimed and killed, and even had economic impacts on national and international trade and travel (Millward 2019). It therefore became in every countries' interest to support a systematic, unified and global approach to smallpox eradication. Under the auspices of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the global strategy of surveillance, containment and vaccination free at the point of delivery and irrespective of ability to pay, worked. In 1980, the WHO declared the world free from smallpox (Baxby 1999) and it became the “first disease to be controlled by immunisation, the first to be eradicated” (Baxby 1999).

So what will historians say about the story of Covid-19? What will be the role of the global community in tackling the Covid-19 pandemic? Will Jenner’s altruistic example of free and accessible vaccinations be consigned to the history books in the 2020 global race to develop a lifesaving Covid-19 vaccine?

On the global front, 4 May 2020 saw world leaders, the UN, research institutions and philanthropic organisations pledge resources to find a vaccine for Covid-19 (albeit with the ominous absence of two major world powers) (BBC 2020). And the race for a vaccine has sparked debates on who, where, and how people would access a Covid-19 vaccine, with speculation for example, that pharmaceutical companies may have to change their business practices (Chu 2020). In the history of smallpox in the UK, vaccine stockpiles were held by private businesses, highlighting “that public health resources were not always in public hands” (Millward 2019, p. 64).

Global businesses have also contributed to an “Open Covid Pledge, “to make intellectual property available free of charge for use in ending Covid-19 pandemic and minimising the impact of the disease” (Open Covid Pledge 2020).

When global powers pulled together for the common good, it took just 13 years to rid the world of a disease that had killed millions across the continents of Africa, America, Australia, Asia and Europe in its 3000 year reign of terror. Prior to that, without global unity and treatment free at the point of delivery, it took 169 years. I wonder what Edward Jenner would have thought?

So as our Covid-19 story unfolds in 2020 and beyond, I wonder how future generations will judge the actions and decisions of our current global leaders and businesses?

References:

1. Flight, C (2011) Smallpox : Eradicating the scourge. BBC History. Last updated 17 Feb 2011. Available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml Accessed: 05 May 2020.
2. Baxby, D (1999) The End of Smallpox. History Today Vol 49 Issue 3. Available: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/end-smallpox
3. Britannica (2020) Edward Jenner. Available: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Jenner Accessed: 6 May 2020. 
4. Millward G (2019) “Smallpox” Vaccinating Britain: Mass vaccination and the public since the Second World War, Chapter 2. [Internet]. Manchester (UK): Manchester University Press; 2019. Chapter 2. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545998/#!po=98.8688 Accessed: 5 May 2020. 
5. BBC News (2020) Coronavirus: World Leaders pledge billions for vaccine fight. Available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52525387 Accessed: 5 May 2020. 
6. Chu, B(2020) “To find a vaccine for coronavirus, pharmaceutical companies will have to Adamson the race for profit”. The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-vaccine-uk-pharmaceutical-companies-patent-monopoly-a9467381.html Accessed: 16 April 2020. 
7. The Open Covid Pledge (2020) Available: https://opencovidpledge.org. Accessed: 5 May 2020. 

Acknowledgements:

• Mrs Patricia Hoyland (pers comm)
• BBC Today programme. Thought for the day. David Wilkinson 4 May 2020.

Image: 

1. “Edwar Jenner” by Pan American Health Organization PAHO via Flickr.com, copyright © 2010: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pahowho/9525240640. Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0)
2. The logo of Open COVID Pledge project, 27 August 2020. Creative Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Covid_Pledge_Logo.jpg).

Experts by Experience challenge us to create opportunities for them to take the lead in research

Posted by Ang Broadbridge (Research and Evaluation Lead) and Ged Hazlehurst (Expert by Experience) Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead

Earlier this year Fuse and Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead co-chaired a Quarterly Research Meeting sharing initial findings from a joint research project that explored the reasons underlying high death rates among people with multiple and complex needs (MCN). There we asked attendees to consider the findings and help shape recommendations.

Now as we write up the findings during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, we are reminded that drug related deaths and MCN issues have been a public health crisis long before the pandemic, though it has drawn an even sharper focus on health inequalities at this time.

The findings from the study will be available in a forthcoming end of project report but in this blog we wanted to go behind the scenes with Experts by Experience to share our experiences of co-production in public health research.

Some background

So what is Fulfilling Lives Newcastle Gateshead (FLNG), and what are Experts by Experience? FLNG is an eight-year learning programme looking to improve the lives of people with complex needs and build a trauma-informed approach within the services that support people across Newcastle and Gateshead. Experts by Experience are people with lived experience of multiple and complex needs, and have vital things to say that can help shape the future of how systems and services work for their peers.

Co-producing research

Co-production is bringing together the people using services and the people providing those services to share power and work collectively to design, develop or deliver improvements to them. This also involves seeing services and staff as agents for change and seeing people who use services as assets with skills, who in turn, gain from their contributions and move towards positive change. For example, Experts by Experience on the FLNG programme have developed training resources for Department for Work & Pensions staff raising awareness of MCN issues, which were rolled out across JobCentre Plus.

FLNG wants research to be genuinely co-produced and has invested in creating a National Vocational Qualification accredited peer research skills training package and local Peer Research Network. This is to support a shift from involvement led by professionals to an approach in which peers define the remit and research questions, leading on all aspects of the research design, delivery and dissemination.

Experts by Experience defining research problems

The beauty of the Fulfilling Lives programme has been our small team and the small caseloads; with at the most eight frontline practitioners each working full time with just 10-12 people. We work intimately with these people, building strong trusting relationships, getting to know their families, and being by their side through crisis.

Between 2014 and 2020 we worked with 267 people, during which time we experienced 27 deaths on programme. That is around 10% of the client cohort, so you can perhaps imagine the impact of that 10% on a small team who have been deeply involved in the lives of the people they have navigated through services.

We talked to our Experts by Experience Network about this and as the programme research lead I (Ang) was really wary about the sensitive subject matter and its potential for re-traumatising. My thinking was challenged when the Experts Network were really passionate about deaths in their community and told us they were already talking about it, often without much support, so not to shy away. Then they challenged us to think about how our co-production and peer research offer could dig deeper to explore this issue. We asked Experts by Experience to help us explore what it would look like for them to take a peer-led approach to this work. They really helped shape the ethics process, for example they told us to look within their Network for participants, as we could guarantee good support for people to discuss any issues that emerged out of participation. In doing so they, the Experts by Experience, identified the topic for this project.

What was the feedback from our co-produced research event? 

When we met for the Fuse QRM the purpose of the session was to study the initial findings gathered from the series of focus groups we ran exploring MCN deaths. It was interesting then that the feedback we received from the event, asking people’s views on what we found and what was surprising, clustered around co-production in research. This suggests that this research has the potential to challenge beliefs about the involvement of people with lived experience in public health research:

• People were surprised by the extent to which Experts by Experience were able to take on such a difficult subject, and;
• People were surprised by the normalisation of death within our Expert by Experience community. 

It is our hope that this acts as a springboard for more and better involvement of people with lived experience of multiple and complex needs in public health research. We have explored a sensitive and challenging subject with Experts by Experience who challenged us to create opportunities for them to take the lead. We hope that as our Peer Research Network grows, other researchers can build on the peer research model we utilised in this study to shape their own research projects.

FLNG is one of twelve programmes linked across England funded by the National Lottery Community Fund, looking to influence the system nationally. A Core Partnership of Changing Lives (lead partner), Mental Health Concern and Oasis Community Housing lead the programme’s activity, for more information visit http://www.fulfillinglives-ng.org.uk/


Images courtesy of http://www.fulfillinglives-ng.org.uk

This crisis has shown how many people were only just about managing

Mandy Cheetham, Research Associate from Teesside University, on the community response to the coronavirus crisis

I have been working as an embedded researcher at Larkspur House, a community project run by the charity Edberts House, funded by Big Lottery, to build happier, healthier and safer communities since October 2019. I started there, not long after it opened, to explore what difference the project is making, and fieldwork was well underway when COVID-19 struck. The project reluctantly had to take the decision to close and the groups and activities temporarily stopped. Like many others, I started working from home, feeling helplessly disconnected from people that I’d got to know, and wondering how everything was going.

A phone call from a colleague at 6pm on 30 March changed all that with an invitation to get involved in the multi-agency response to the COVID-19 crisis. Larkspur House was to morph into one of nine community hubs co-ordinated by Gateshead Council distributing food parcels, delivering prescriptions and offering support to people who are medically and socially vulnerable. I jumped at the chance, and since then, it has been something of a rollercoaster. We are a small, multi-disciplinary team, with complementary skills, talents and experience in an extremely busy hub. We phone people who have contacted the council for help to see what they need. In 4 weeks, we have delivered 250 food parcels to approximately 1000 people in the local community and three neighbouring estates. It’s important, exhausting, rewarding and at times frustrating work. It has revealed enormous generosity, neighbourliness, resilience, kindness and anxiety in the communities we serve. The crisis has also shown how many people were only just about managing day to day.

Since the lockdown started, I have listened to people who are fearful for their lives, worried about how they, their families and friends are going to manage through this crisis; the precariousness and embarrassment of people having to admit they are down to the last packet of pasta; people having to borrow from neighbours, family and friends; at the end of their resilience facing additional hurdles; people relying on Universal Credit, who’ve been sanctioned pre-lockdown and whose money has been stopped for 4 weeks during lockdown; the family with 4 children under 7 whose utility company cut off their gas supply leaving them without hot water or heating; the response of an unflappable team member who calmly and unquestioningly dropped off a food parcel and topped up the gas meter at 9pm on a Friday night to help a family through the weekend.

People who are routinely going out of their way to help people through this; pharmacists working flat out to process and deliver prescriptions, family members in touch with concerns about parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who they cannot help for fear of putting them at risk. The kindness and dependability of the volunteers from the estate who deliver daily packed lunches to children on free school meals, including on Good Friday and Easter Monday. The same volunteers who methodically planned, packed and delivered more than 300 craft packs to go out with donations of Easter eggs in the local area. The drivers and volunteers delivering the food; the unquestioning generosity of supermarket managers in local shops who I have approached for donations of bread, eggs, toiletries, nappies, baby wipes and fresh vegetables to include in the emergency boxes we distribute. The teachers, assistants and school staff looking after key workers’ children and children of families who need extra help. The humour of the Larkspur craft and natter group, formed by staff in response to being unable to meet weekly, so people can offer encouragement and support remotely, sharing tips, knitting hearts and NHS bears for patients and their families. People’s willingness to help where they can in creative and diverse ways; the unrelenting drive and ambition to help people through this awful, unprecedented crisis.

In such a short space of time, it has revealed so much of what can be achieved when we pull together, build on the trusting relationships and networks we have developed, sometimes over years, with respect, kindness, compassion, thoughtful leadership and careful co-ordination, non-judgemental and flexible approaches. It is, and continues to be a privilege to be part of this team. It couldn’t have happened in the way it has without the community members, staff and volunteers from Larkspur House whose nimble, agile response has made a tangible difference to local people. Relationships have been strengthened and cemented; bonds that will last.

Some people are saying the world has changed forever. I hope it is for the better. I hope the academic and research community has been able to show what a difference we can make when we work together, in collaboration with local communities, responsive voluntary organisations working alongside staff from local government, NHS, and education. Universities can claim to be part of a wider civic response, and at times like this, we can contribute in multiple ways. Whether our area of research is on vaccines, testing, contact tracing, epidemiology, modelling, food poverty, Universal Credit, welfare reform, nutrition or any other area of public health, there are multiple ways to be useful in the short, medium and long term. It involves working with others, as part of teams generating solutions together. We need to accept we do not have all the answers, we are part of a jigsaw of possible responses. That might mean moving out of our comfort zone, rolling up our sleeves and packing food parcels with colleagues and communities who will remember you were there with them when it mattered.

There are wider issues of course, longer term policy issues to focus our attention on, including policy issues to do with Universal Credit, welfare reform and its impact, which pushed people to the edge of coping before COVID-19 started. But for now, there are more pressing issues of food and prescriptions to deal with. Your local area will have its own responses and networks in place, formal and informal. If you’re shopping for others, that’s great. Can you safely check on neighbours around you? When you’re in the supermarket, foodbanks need your donations more than ever. Find out what they need. For the hubs, tinned meat, tinned fish, coffee, UHT milk, cereal, washing up liquid, shower gel and shampoo are useful. If you are in a position to donate, please do. Find out where your local voluntary organisations are helping and how you can support them. If you want to find out more about the charities involved in the Gateshead hubs, visit https://www.ageuk.org.uk/gateshead/help-pages/coronavirus/ or http://edbertshouse.org

Jerry-rigging, day chunking and comfy slippers: Coping with working from home

Posted by Jack Nicholls, Graduate Tutor, Northumbria University

I am a huge fan of Firefly. For the uninitiated, it’s a TV series centred on a rag-tag quasi-criminal crew, working for themselves on a tired but solid cargo spaceship, taking jobs as they can. It has a phenomenal amount to recommend it, and is rich and complex in terms of plot, dialogue and morality. Given that the ship serves as home, workspace, transport and social space, no-one discusses work-life balance. Maybe it’s not such an issue in sci-fi.

In the real world, most of our homes have over the last couple of months been 'jerry-rigged'* into offices, studio, workshops and lecture podiums. Some of us are sharing our new occupational spaces with family or flatmates with their own needs and pressures. Some of us are completely on our own, missing our colleagues. All possible permutations come with challenges and difficulties, and the one commonality is that there aren’t necessarily that many commonalities.

As the diversity of experiences became apparent, I decided to seek and compile a range of different coping strategies from colleagues in my department. What follows is the thematised synthesis of those colleagues’ input and ideas.


Getting writing (or anything else) done

My 'jerry-rigged' free-form workstation

• Short bursts of focused concentration throughout the day - Pomodoro technique is a variant of this.
• Daily goal of one substantial work task and one admin task
• ....or a day given over wholly to one or the other
• ....or a few small achievable goals.

• Shutting emails / twitter/ phone off for allotted time periods.
• Ending the day mid-sentence or with the next idea ready.
• Content drafting or form/language editing when writing, but never both at the same time 

Structure and timing

• Choose a daily time to start and definitely finish work, with regular breaks and small treats.
• Differentiate between the working week and the evenings/weekends/(bank) holidays.
• Alternatively......giving up on the 9-5... some are working in short bursts when able. 
• Use your best available thinking time for the more complex/academic/difficult/thinky work (generally morning for me).
• A ‘panic to do list’ - dump everything out of your head onto paper (work and otherwise) – then prioritise.
• To-do-list for the next day – 3 things max.
• Forcing yourself to do the worst job first - (known in some circles as ‘eat the frog’ – I can’t advise taking this literally ☹). 
• Split tasks up to reduce boredom/weariness. 
• If able, work early in the day on internet-reliant tasks (internet speed can slow in the afternoon).
• Spread the admin tasks throughout the week.
• Open the curtains in the morning, turn the lights on in the evening and then off before going to sleep - good for psychological rhythm.
• Agree to morning video calls - it forces you to get dressed.
• Clean and tidy up, either first or last thing - you will feel a sense of accomplishment and peace. 

Habits

• Get dressed for work – not necessarily what you’d wear to the office/library/placement – but something that is different to your ‘comfy’ wear. When you're finished working get changed.
• Alternatively...some find it freeing and comfortable to work in their pyjamas if they don’t have a Skype call.
• Comfy slippers, but smart/casual wear for torso (just in case anyone Zooms, FaceTimes or Teams you).
• Exercise at some point in the day – that could be anything – online pilates, weights, a stroll.
• Don’t work excessive hours and be realistic about expectations (it will never all be done).
• Get some fresh air – if you or one of your household are among the shielded, an open window will do.
• Give yourself a bedtime and try observing some sleep hygiene.
• Sing (or even dance) when you have a break and interact with pets if you have them.
• Keep in regular contact with colleagues and friends, but also be prepared to turn off contact devices when you need to concentrate.
• Keep your work space organised if possible – if space is limited, some people find it helpful to put all their work things on a tray, then it can be moved to wherever there is space, and quickly out of the away. 
• Some find working in the same place suits them, others move around for variety, or depending on the task.
• Switch the background on your Word document to something other than bright white – less strain on the eyes. Any pastel shade is good. 

Pickle & Missy failing to follow social distancing rules

These tips are diverse, and some contradict one another. This is neither a surprise nor a bad thing – academic staff, like anyone else, vary in their personal circumstances, geography, family situation, preferences and strengths. I don’t have caring responsibilities (rabbits aside) but am in a risky health category, so my time is possibly more flexible, but my ability to leave the house extra-limited. The way to look at this list is as a broad range of suggestions, and to take or try things that you think might work for you and your situation. It may be that some things work better under some circumstances than others, and there will be things here that just don’t work in your personal situation. Customise, reverse-engineer, and fit to your needs.

I’ll end where I started – with Firefly. The following exchange takes place after a tumultuous, dangerous escapade.

"We're still flying." 
"That's not much." 
"It's enough" 

Stay as safe as you can, and good luck.

*for those of a less nautical persuasion, 'jerry-rigged' or 'jury-rigged' means having temporary makeshift rigging. In this case my improvised workstation!


Contributors:
Melanie Gibson, Sarah Lonbay, Katie Haighton, Tim Rapley, Monique Lhussier, Natalie Foster, Sonia Dalkin, David Nichol, Julie-Anne Lowe, Kay Heslop, Peter Kruithof, Donna Carlyle

Image:

1. "Firefly boxset cover" by Tom Mulrooney via Flickr.com, copyright © 2006: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mullers/232714398. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

What is the recipe for a happy retirement?

Independence, identity, planning and staying socially connected says Anastasiia Fedeeva, Postgraduate Researcher, from Northumbria University

For the last two and a half years, I have been working on a PhD that aims to promote wellbeing and physical activity in retirement. Over this time some people have asked me whether I ever felt too young to understand what retired people might need to live their lives better. I must admit that is a fair question but not just because of the potential age difference with my target population.

 

First, before designing and implementing any initiatives to promote wellbeing or physical activity, it is recommended that you have a good knowledge of the people that you want to help; their needs, preferences, and feelings (Laverack, 2017). Furthermore, retirement itself is a unique and complex phenomena. Retirement experiences vary considerably between individuals and are influenced by a variety of contextual factors, for example the characteristics of a job, personal health, social networks, or whether a spouse is working (Wang, 2007). Therefore, it is important to understand the gaps in what can predict positive retirement (Amabile, 2019; Van Der Zwaan et al., 2019). One way to explore retirement more comprehensively is by conducting qualitative research to find out about the experiences of retirees, as this allows us to identify the key ways in which people adapt to a successful retirement in connection with individual and contextual factors. That’s why I spent several months last year conducting focus groups and individual interviews in order to better understand psychological predictors of retirement adjustment such as people’s attitudes, feelings, and behaviours.

 

To understand what is so good and bad about retirement, it is important to recognise what people leave behind after quitting their jobs. Work brings a lot of positives to our lives and this is not only limited to our finances. Among the most common benefit is the feeling of belongingness and connectedness with our colleagues. Retired people can be very concerned about losing valuable connections from their previous employment. For some, work may be the main source of social interaction, and those people might feel particularly vulnerable in retirement. 

 

Another positive aspect of work is in giving us an identity. If you ask people: “Who are they?”, very often the first answer would be related to the person’s work role. As people leave employment, they can no longer define themselves by their professions, and it brings the question: “Who are they now?” Although work identity can be substituted with other roles, such as those that are family or hobby-related, this process might take some time and individual effort. For those with a particularly strong attachment to work, such identity transition can be very challenging. 

 

However, one benefit associated with retirement that many look forward to, is increased freedom and independence. Most are excited to have the opportunity to finally live in accordance with their own preferences and choices, free from work-associated obligations and routines. This desire for independence seems to develop beyond just freedom from work commitments. Retired people value independence in other areas of life as well, and sometimes this even takes precedence over the importance of social connections. One reason can be that people of retirement age have already had all variety of commitments, including work and family responsibilities, and retirement is viewed as a relief from that. Another possible reason is that retirement is seen by many as the beginning of ‘old age’. As individuals acknowledge age-related health decline, they start appreciating physical and mental independence more than ever.

 

Additionally, some recently retired people see creating a new routine as another restriction to their freedom but planning day-to-day activities can be beneficial for wellbeing in the long-run. Planning seems to enable a better use of this increased freedom by helping retirees to participate in different activities of their choice. Thus, establishing new routines can be remarkably empowering as they foster feelings of control, sense of purpose and self-value, that “I’ve got my life back!”. 

 

As such, regardless of the differences in experiences and expectations, social connectedness, independence, successful identity transition, and planning activities in retirement appeared to be important for the vast majority of my participants. These findings supported and added to our ideas on how to promote healthy retirement. 

 

Personally, I feel privileged to have shared in the stories of retired adults. This has made me feel much closer to them – they aren’t ‘just participants’ anymore but real people who have gone through life’s joys and struggles. I have realised even more that despite the generational, cultural, and life experience gaps, we might just be looking for the same things that contribute to our happiness and wellbeing after all.

 

  

References:

1. Laverack, G. (2017). The challenge of behaviour change and health promotion. Challenges, 8(2), 25. Retrieved from: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/8/2/25
2. Wang, M. (2007). Profiling retirees in the retirement transition and adjustment process: Examining the longitudinal change patterns of retirees’ psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 455-474. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17371091 
3. Amabile, T. M. (2019). Understanding Retirement Requires Getting Inside People’s Stories: A Call for More Qualitative Research. Work, Aging and Retirement. Retrieved from: https://academic.oup.com/workar/article/5/3/207/5521007
4. Van der Zwaan, G. L., Hengel, K. M. O., Sewdas, R., de Wind, A., Steenbeek, R., van der Beek, A. J., & Boot, C. R. (2019). The role of personal characteristics, work environment and context in working beyond retirement: a mixed-methods study. International archives of occupational and environmental health, 92(4), 535-549. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00420-018-1387-3
   

Image:

1. "Your father's opted out of a dignified retirement." by Grizelda Grizlingham via University of Kent, British Cartoon Archive (Reference number: GGD1456, Published by: Spectator, 02 Mar 2018, with thanks to Copyright holder: Grizelda Grizlingham): https://archive.cartoons.ac.uk/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=GGD1456&pos=23

Working from home isn’t for everyone - here’s how to cope if you’re struggling

Posted by Annabel van Griethuysen, Floating Dietetic Clinical Specialist, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (TEWV)

You may find yourself, as I have, being asked to work from home during the COVID-19 crisis. Although my work as a dietitian is vital to the NHS and to the care of patients, it is something which can be done remotely. Whilst those working from home may feel relieved in some ways to be able to socially distance, unlike our colleagues in front line services, this still comes with its own challenges.

Being isolated at home can be hard; it is easy to feel cut off from friends and co-workers, to feel out of the loop when it comes to work decisions and to feel stressed with how best to work when at home. Some people may find it frustrating that they cannot work as they did, and find performance dropping; others have told me that they are working over and beyond to almost prove that they are still being productive.

Working from home works for some people, and not for others. So what should we do if we are asked to work from home, and are struggling?

One thing which is key is to ensure that you keep a routine as much as possible. It is tempting to roll out of bed and turn on the laptop; no hair brushing, in pyjamas, no makeup. However, getting up and keeping a routine is very helpful to maintain mental health and structure. Getting up with enough time to relax before turning on the computer, to get dressed and to have breakfast, will help to separate relaxing time at home from work time at home. This also goes for the rest of the day - make time to do enjoyable activities, make sure you are getting enough sleep, and schedule breaks into your working day.

Ensuring you are eating and drinking well is also extremely important. Having time away from the computer for lunch and sitting in a different place to eat can help to break up the day and give you a much needed break. Generally, the British Dietetic Association has advised to continue to eat and drink normally throughout this pandemic, focussing on a balance of food groups. If we are struggling to shop regularly, they advise using fresh foods first, but also frozen, dried and tinned produce, for example vegetables, are still a valuable sources of nutrition. It is tempting to snack more when working from home; I know personally the lure of the biscuit tin is strong, but instead of reaching for a biscuit, try getting a hot drink, or having a wander to a different room for a 5 minute break. I’m lucky enough to have a garden to use to get a quick bit of exercise.

One thing to potentially consider is a supplement of vitamin D. This is usually the sunshine vitamin which, in the spring, we would be able to get from sunlight, but with limited exposure to the sun at the moment, a 10microgram supplement may be beneficial.

Having a completely separate space to work which is tidied or hidden away at the end of the day can help to establish structure and boundaries, and resist the temptation to work on into the night. Try to make sure that this space is appropriate as well, with a desk, supportive chair, and enough natural light and ventilation. It can also help to keep two or four legged ‘helpers’ at bay!

But finally, it is normal and understandable to feel anxious and stressed, especially at this time. So make sure you are talking if this is the case. Reach out to your social circles (I have somehow managed to teach my mother to use WhatsApp video calling!) and keep connected. Together we will be strong.

Some sources of support and information:

• The British Dietetic Association: Advice on Nutrition
• The Recovery College Online: Lots of advice, including on walking and exercise
• Managing Musculoskeletal Health in isolation
• NHS Advice on staying well at home
• Coronavirus: Five ways to work well from home (BBC)

Annabel is a Floating Dietetic Clinical Specialist at Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (TEWV). Practitioner of Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, Trade Union Representative for the BDA (Association of UK Dietitians) and Staff and Dietetic Wellness Champion.

Photo attribution: 

• 'Mom working from home' by Lyncconf Games, copyright © 2018: https://www.lyncconf.com (via Flickr.com: https://flickr.com/photos/nodstrum/42643527974) (CC BY 2.0)

The mental health of the nation has never been so under threat

Posted by Fiona Duncan, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Durham University

Lockdowns and self-isolation, increasing care demands, concern for others, and ongoing uncertainty are exacerbated by a reinforcing 24-hour news and opinion cycle, playing havoc with our stress and anxiety levels and battering our overall sense of wellbeing. The coronavirus crisis.

However, for many people across the country, a feeling of their wellbeing being under attack is not new. Experiences of overwhelming debt, long-term unemployment, insecure housing, poverty, food insecurity, social isolation lasting months or years and/or discrimination are common and can collectively chronically diminish the mental health of the public as a whole.

These normal and extraordinary circumstances raise the question of how the mental health of an entire population can be supported, or in other words, how can we improve public mental health (PMH)? Over the past year, I have had the privilege of investigating this complex question in detail within Fuse.

My work has primarily involved mapping interventions currently being delivered to improve PMH, exploring models of good practice and searching for emerging innovative ideas. This focused on two areas – Blackburn with Darwen, and Redcar and Cleveland – which were selected on the basis of mental health statistics and varying characteristics (e.g. rurality, deprivation etc.).

I found this mapping exercise a great opportunity to get out and about and talk to people who organise and deliver projects to improve PMH on the ground in their local area. I spoke to a lot of very helpful people who were very passionate about the work they did and it was inspiring to hear about the variety of innovative projects that were being provided for people in these local authority areas to promote good mental health and prevent mental illness.

One of our main findings was that interventions to prevent social isolation and loneliness by providing various social activities were most common. This may reflect how recent campaigns surrounding reducing social isolation in older adults have influenced policy. Although a multitude of individual, family, community and structural factors influence PMH, not all of these were addressed. Does this suggest a wider variety of interventions are required in the future or would it be better to develop interventions which have the ability to target multiple factors at the same time? For instance, interventions which increase social networks within society, self-confidence or self-efficacy may enable people to deal with many different threats to their mental health without having to use a specific service.

An interesting finding of this mapping exercise was that a lot of these interventions either hadn’t been evaluated at all or only a very basic evaluation had been carried out so there was very little objective evidence regarding their effectiveness. This is something we hope to address in the next phase of the project by carrying out in-depth evaluations of promising interventions, including their potential to be delivered on a larger scale.

One final finding from this mapping that seems more relevant now than a month ago is that very few of the public mental health interventions could be delivered exclusively online. The implications of this are that the vast majority of the projects that we identified will most likely be suspended and many people who depended on this support will be left to cope alone. Moreover, people who are currently struggling with the isolation of lockdown have reduced options for help. Although Public Health England has published online guidance for the public on the mental health and wellbeing aspects of coronavirus there is an urgent need for supporting remote delivery or new online interventions within the next few weeks (of course, recognising that not everyone has access to these).

We also need to consider what we are all going to do when the COVID-19 situation is over. Will the country’s mental health bounce back to normal levels without any help, perhaps benefitting from the shared sense of community and new ways of living and working developed during the crisis? Or, will we need to work hard to develop and deliver services at the individual, family, community and structural levels to repair the damage that has been done to the mental health of the nation?


This work was part of WP4 of phase one of the NIHR SPHR Public Mental Health programme.  Information about the wider programme is on the SPHR website and was a collaboration of researchers based at Fuse, UCL, Imperial College London and Cambridge University.

Food shaming is not a game

Posted by Sarah Dempster, Registered Nutritionist (Public Health)

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

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

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

Mixed messages

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

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

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

What do children understand from nutrition education?

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

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

What does the curriculum actually say?

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

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

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


References:

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

A decade of school food policy inertia

To mark International School Meals Day, we asked former-schoolteacher turned school food researcher Kelly Rose from Teesside University to reflect back on the progress of school food over the last decade.

As a former schoolteacher, now researching the secondary school food environment and adolescent dietary habits, it seems fitting to mark school meals day 2020 by reflecting on a decade of secondary school food policy.

Of late, ‘other’ focuses you could say, have overshadowed the important fact that our young people’s diets are nutritionally poor in the UK. But that begs the question, why are the population of future parents and workforce not a priority at all times?

Currently more than 91 million school children around the world are reported to be living with obesity, with the UK being in the top 20 countries for childhood obesity levels, doubling during the primary school years and increasing further into secondary education. The majority of adolescents in the UK have nutrient deficient diets, high in processed foods and very low in fruit and vegetables. With only 4% of teenagers meeting UK public health fibre recommendations, a significant concern given that dietary fibre is linked to a decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancers. Furthermore, the health inequalities gap is a devastating burden of poor health for our children living in more disadvantaged areas and minority communities, in comparison to those from more affluent areas.

"In my research I have noticed a level of inertia on the evaluation or policing of school food policy this decade"

In my research I have noticed a level of inertia on the evaluation or policing of school food policy this decade, impacting on school’s healthy food choice offerings. Only the other day my friends 11-year-old daughter explained to me the best thing about her new (secondary) school was the food; “I can eat pizza and cookies every day” - oh dear. Kind of explains why our young people are generally low in at least five micronutrients essential for growth, development mood, reproductive health, energy levels and immunity.

2009 – The Nutrient based standards (NBS)

In 2009 the NBS were rolled out to secondary schools in England, after first being introduced into primary schools. Not only were these food standards focused on meeting young people’s nutrient requirements, but also the mapping of 4 areas of influence provided a framework for which to apply the policy across the nation (Haroun et al 2011). These were considered ‘the most detailed and comprehensive in the world’ (Harper and Wells 2007; Evans and Harper 2009). Plus the Initial evaluations were encouraging (Adamson et al 2013; Stevens et al 2013). However, the NBS was for some a ‘complex task’ to implement (Rose et al 2019).

What happened in 2010?

A change in government (the introduction of the Coalition led by David Cameron) meant a change to school food. Firstly, any ‘newly established academies and free schools’ were not required to adhere to the NBS. A decision which some viewed as a deregulation of school food. Quite soon, school food standards were under review, and in 2013 the School Food plan (SPF) developed by Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent (Long, 2019) was introduced.

The School Food Plan

Over the next few years we see SFP replacing NBS as a legal requirement for ‘all food served in most schools’ (Rose et al 2019). Remember the decision in 2010 to release the new academies and free schools? Well, this means that these schools are still exempt from following the standards, however, some have signed up voluntarily. The aim of the SPF is to transform what children are eating in school and to support schools to create a ‘healthy school ethos’. The SFP is certainly visual, providing ease of use, and the comprehensive resources give schools checklists and guidance. But, here lies a problem, where is the school support system?

Part two of the decade

The first chapter of the UK childhood obesity strategy published in 2016 (DHSC, 2016) provided some recommendations and support for school health initiatives, for the most part within primary aged children. Then in 2017 two things of note happened. The School Food Trust integral to the systems mapping approach of the NBS had been an independent organisation since 2011 providing school resources and opportunities for research closed without funds to carry on. The second was an independent review (the Food Education and Learning Landscape review (FELL)) carried out by The Jamie Oliver Food Foundation. The researcher reported a vast difference in the approach to healthy eating and food education in secondary school environments, stating to be ‘alarmed’ at the state of the problems surrounding the “secondary school food environment”.

Chapter two of the Childhood Obesity strategy (DHSC, 2018) included a pledge to commit to support ‘all children with high quality nutrition’ by conducting consultations on nutrition within buying standards for school catering services and introducing ‘a healthy rating scheme’ allowing for ‘self-evaluation’, whilst also providing a more robust Ofsted framework. My issue as a former food and nutrition teacher/head of health education in a school with supportive leadership is that schools need support externally to evaluate and help develop menus and implement nutritious school meals. The capacity, knowledge and often willingness of school leads, along with the lack of monitoring of adherence to school food standards remain huge barriers to effective school food provision.

2020 current picture

This is where we find the current school food picture in England, no real change from 2018. Awaiting the healthy school’s framework and a priority to be placed on school food provision policy. And, in the meantime social norms of poor teen diets are becoming more and more acceptable, healthy food is so ‘uncool’ to a teenager’s street cred. With the myriad of fast food options on the ‘School fringe’ less expensive and more convenient, thus appealing to the innate biology and the impulsivity of teenagers. A plan to shift teen risk perception of unhealthy eating (i.e. behaviour change) as well as consistency in following the SFP is needed.

A big question

The big question here is why has there been no evaluation of the SFP? There is limited evidence of schools following the school food plan. School staff and leaders have in my mind the most strenuous roles in terms of juggling priorities and educating young people. To expect schools to take on the huge role of making sure food provision meet the nutrient requirements of the nations young people without support is to my mind crazy and as we see presently, will not work…


About Kelly:

Kelly is a registered nutritionist and a former school teacher, currently investigating ways to reduce the obesogenic environment with a secondary school food focus as part of her PhD. She is passionate about the impact of nutrition on adolescent health and has spoken locally, nationally and internationally on the topic of school interventions and the importance of social influence on food choice and the impact of nutrition on mood and behaviour. Kelly is registered with the Association for Nutrition (AFN), a member of Plant based health professionals UK, Nutrition Society, British Nutrition Foundation, Fuse: the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health and The Association for the Study of Obesity.

Adapted with thanks to Food Active

Image: 'primary school, lunch, break, school, activities' by Amanda Mills, USCDCP via PIXNIO (https://pixnio.com/people/children-kids/primary-school-taking-their-daily-lunch-break-during-their-school-day-activities) (Personal & commercial use (CC0).

Out of the shadows: Corporate activity and our health

Posted by Nason Maani, Harkness Fellow, Boston University School of Public Health

When considering the impact of commercial actors on health, our minds in public health turn immediately to tobacco. However, while the tobacco industry has earned its reputation and associated exclusion from policymaking, what is unique about those actors misleading policymakers and the public for commercial advantage? Arguably, nothing at all. Asbestos, leaded paint, fossil fuel, sugar-sweetened-beverage and alcohol companies and their proxies have been found to pursue similar tactics.

This is not to say that large commercial actors cannot in many cases benefit society while making a profit. Rather, it is to say that such commercial actors have a track record of focusing on maintaining profit while avoiding litigation, negative PR, and regulatory burdens. When these goals conflict with population health, such actors have the power and scale to negatively influence health, the evidence base, policy options, and even public discourse. The commercial determinants of health, in their broadest sense, are defined as activities of the private sector that affect the health of the population.

As we discussed in a recent commentary, there is a need to progress our understanding in this area because all these areas of influence matter to societal progress, and there are commonalities across many different industries in terms of their motivations, strategies, networks, tactics and interventions that merit the attention of public health researchers.

There is also currently a lack of conceptual focus on these powerful actors by policy-makers and non-governmental organisations, and some gaps in our thinking about these issues. We know that it is largely the conditions in which we are born, grow, live, work and age that determine our health, sometimes called “the social determinants of health”. However, in a recent review, we showed that commercial determinants were often absent from conceptual frameworks of the social determinants of health. This is problematic because such actors have the incentives, resources and strategic ability to influence everything from individual behaviours, attitudes and preferences, to the pollution of the environment, and the funding of politicians who are unwilling to consider the weight of evidence on a particular issue.

Oxfam’s infographic making the connections between big companies and some very familiar brands.

There is a large space for study in this area, but many challenges to doing so, not least because there is relatively little research funding or political will to tackle these issues directly. Many researchers and advocates remain “silo-ed”, focusing on a particular product, or discipline. This “zoomed-in” view stands in contrast to the intersectional ways in which a single large company might act, never mind an industry sector as a whole, or different industry sectors with overlapping interests, acting, for example, to diminish employment rights or environmental standards. We argue that there must be much greater scope for the convening of interdisciplinary research to explore these issues and offer potential solutions.

What about practice?

Aside from research, what about practice? There is also a need for the evidence that does exist to translate more effectively into policy. The challenge public health practitioners often face is that there is a strong political will for partnership and collaboration with the private sector at the local, national and global level, both through direct partnerships, and multilateral engagements. Such arrangements are, on the face of it, appealing. Access to the resources of the private sector is an obvious solution to the problem of increasingly restricted budgets for public health departments, particularly as these private resource pools are so large. Voluntary commitments between the public and private sectors are also conceptually appealing, echoing the type of multi-stakeholder engagement that public health advocates strive for.

However, in the UK, the evidence suggests such activities are often characterised by an abundance of words (in the form of voluntary pledges) and a paucity of deeds (in the form of meaningful changes to how harmful products are produced and marketed). Without regulatory safeguards, it appears unlikely that harmful product manufacturers will voluntarily act in ways that could reduce their own profit margins or lead to “stranded assets”. Instead, such actors will go to great lengths in framing themselves as part of the solution to a “complex” problem, while attempting to diminish the role they play in creating that problem, and rejecting what they termed “one size fits all” approaches such as policy best buys.

There is, however, progress on the research front. Research on specific harmful products and the industries that produce and market them continue apace, and commonalities in corporate strategies are being increasingly discussed. Networks of interested researchers in related topics are beginning to emerge. Perhaps most promisingly, it is becoming clear that commercial determinants are an important component of the broader determinants of health. As the “elephants in the room” become more widely perceived in issues such as alcohol harm, climate change and the opioid crisis, let us hope that, informed by a growing evidence base, the tools to properly address them will follow.


Photo attribution:

1. "140/365 - Coke Shadow" by Adam Wyles via Flickr.com, copyright © 2011: https://www.flickr.com/photos/the-travelling-bum/5418900013 (CC BY-ND 2.0).
2. Oxfam infographic courtesy of Oxfam, copyright © 2013: https://firstperson.oxfamamerica.org/2013/03/10-everyday-food-brands-and-the-few-giant-companies-that-own-them