Who is responsible for fixing the food system? A framing analysis of media reactions to the UK's National Food Strategy

Purpose – High levels of child obesity alongside rising stunting and the absence of a coherent food policy have deemed UK’s food system to be broken. The National Food Strategy (NFS) was debated intensely in media, with discussions on how and who should fix the food system.Design/methodology/approach – Using a mixed methods approach, the authors conduct framing analysis on traditional media and sentiment analysis of twitter reactions to the NFS to identify frames used to shape food system policy interventions.Findings – The study finds evidence that the media coverage of the NFS often utilised the tropes of “culture wars” shaping the debate of who is responsible to fix the food system – the government, the public or the industry. NFS recommendations were portrayed as issues of free choice to shift the debate away from government action correcting for market failure. In contrast, the industry was showcased as equipped to intervene on its own accord. Dietary recommendations made by the NFS were depicted as hurting the poor, painting a picture of helplessness and loss of control, while their voices were omitted and not represented in traditional media.Social implications – British media’s alignment with free market economic thinking has implications for food systems reform, as it deters the government from acting and relies on the invisible hand of the market to fix the system. Media firms should move beyond tropes of culture wars to discuss interventions that reform the structural causes of the UK’s broken food systems.Originality/value – As traditional media coverage struggles to capture the diversity of public perception; the authors supplement framing analysis with sentiment analysis of Twitter data. To the best of our knowledge, no such media (and social media) analysis of the NFS has been conducted. The paper is also original as it extends our understanding of how media alignment with free market economic thinking has implications for food systems reform, as it deters the government from acting and relies on the invisible hand of the market to fix the system

Update to a protocol for a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a peer-led school-based intervention to increase the physical activity of adolescent girls (PLAN-A)

BACKGROUND: Physical activity levels are low amongst adolescent girls, and this population faces specific barriers to being active. Peer influences on health behaviours are important in adolescence, and peer-led interventions might hold promise to change behaviour. This paper describes the protocol for a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of Peer-Led physical Activity iNtervention for Adolescent girls (PLAN-A), a peer-led intervention aimed at increasing adolescent girls’ physical activity levels. In addition, this paper describes an update that has been made to the protocol for the PLAN-A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-arm cluster randomised feasibility trial will be conducted in six secondary schools (intervention n = 4; control n = 2) with year 8 (12–13 years old) girls. The intervention will operate at a year group level and consist of year 8 girls nominating influential peers within their year group to become peer supporters. Approximately 15% of the cohort will receive 3 days of training about physical activity and interpersonal communication skills. Peer supporters will then informally diffuse messages about physical activity amongst their friends for 10 weeks. Data will be collected at baseline (time 0 (T0)), immediately after the intervention (time 1 (T1)) and 12 months after baseline measures (time 2 (T2)). In this feasibility trial, the primary interest is in the recruitment of schools and participants (both year 8 girls and peer supporters), delivery and receipt of the intervention, data provision rates and identifying the cost categories for future economic analysis. Physical activity will be assessed using 7-day accelerometry, with the likely primary outcome in a fully powered trial being daily minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Participants will also complete psychosocial questionnaires at each time point: assessing motivation, self-esteem and peer physical activity norms. Data analysis will be largely descriptive and focus on recruitment, attendance and data provision rates. The findings will inform the sample size required for a definitive trial. A detailed process evaluation using qualitative and quantitative methods will be conducted with a variety of stakeholders (i.e. pupils, parents, teachers and peer-supporter trainers) to identify areas of success and necessary improvements prior to proceeding to a definitive trial. DISCUSSION: The study will provide the information necessary to design a fully powered trial should PLAN-A demonstrate evidence of promise. This paper describes an update to the protocol for the PLAN-A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial related to the data-linkage component. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN1254354

TEST (Trial of Eczema allergy Screening Tests):protocol for feasibility randomised controlled trial of allergy tests in children with eczema, including economic scoping and nested qualitative study

Background Early-onset eczema is associated with food allergy, and allergic reactions to foods can cause acute exacerbations of eczema. Parents often pursue dietary restrictions as a way of managing eczema and seek allergy testing for their children to guide dietary management. However, it is unclear whether test-guided dietary management improves eczema symptoms, and whether the practice causes harm through reduced use of conventional eczema treatment or unnecessary dietary restrictions. The aim of the TEST (Trial of Eczema allergy Screening Tests) study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a trial comparing food allergy testing and dietary advice versus usual care, for the management of eczema in children. Methods and analysis Design: a single centre, two-group, individually randomised, feasibility RCT with economic scoping and a nested qualitative study. Setting: GP surgeries in the West of England. Participants: children aged over 3 months and less than 5 years with mild to severe eczema. Interventions: allergy testing (structured allergy history and skin prick tests) or usual care. Sample size and outcome measures: we aim to recruit 80 participants and follow them up using 4-weekly questionnaires for 24 weeks. Nested qualitative study: We will conduct ~20 interviews with parents of participating children, 5-8 interviews with parents who decline or withdraw from the trial and ~10 interviews with participating GPs. Economic scoping: We will gather data on key costs and outcomes to assess the feasibility of carrying out a cost-effectiveness analysis in a future definitive trial. Ethics and dissemination The study has been reviewed by the Health Research Authority and given a favourable opinion by the NHS REC (West Midlands – South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee, Reference Number 18/WM/0124). Findings will be submitted for presentation at conferences and written up for publication in peer-reviewed journals

Living the life of floods: place-based learning in an Anthropocene harmscape

This article explores how place-based learning and the development of landscape literacies unfold in a place suffused with a complex set of risks resulting from inter-operating and intersecting sociohistorical, political and environmental factors. By analysing assemblages of images and accompanying texts produced through a photovoice process undertaken by co-researchers in an informal settlement in South Africa’s Cape Flats, we show that residents are embedded in an ongoing process of embodied place-connectedness that has extensive pedagogical impact. We suggest that the learning that takes place in this harmscape may enable residents’ survival at the cost of allowing for either hope or the possibility of transformative change

The Social and Emotional Education and Development intervention to address wellbeing in primary school age children: the SEED cluster RCT

Background: Stronger social and emotional well-being during primary school is positively associated with the health and educational outcomes of young people. However, there is little evidence on which programmes are the most effective for improving social and emotional well-being. Objective: The objective was to rigorously evaluate the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) intervention process for improving pupils’ social and emotional well-being. Design: This was a stratified cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. Thirty-eight primary schools were randomly assigned to the SEED intervention or to the control group. Hierarchical regression analysis allowing for clustering at school learning community level was conducted in R (statistical package). Setting: The SEED intervention is a whole-school intervention; it involved all school staff and two cohorts of pupils, one starting at 4 or 5 years of age and the second starting at 8 or 9 years of age, across all 38 schools. Participants: A total of 2639 pupils in Scotland. Intervention: The SEED intervention used an iterative process that involved three components to facilitate selection and implementation of school-based actions: (1) questionnaire completion, (2) benchmarked feedback to all staff and (3) reflective discussions (all staff and an educational psychologist). Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was pupils’ Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score when pupils were 4 years older than at baseline. Results: The primary outcome, pupils’ Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score at follow-up 3, showed improvements for intervention arm pupils, compared with those in the control arm [relative risk −1.30 (95% confidence interval −1.87 to −0.73), standardised effect size −0.27 (95% confidence interval −0.39 to −0.15)]. There was no evidence of intervention effects according to deprivation: the results were significant for both affluent and deprived pupils. Subgroup analysis showed that all effect sizes were larger for the older cohort, particularly boys [relative risk −2.36 (95% confidence interval −3.62 to −1.11), standardised effect size −0.42 (95% confidence interval −0.64 to −0.20)]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was high, at 88%. Particularly valued mechanisms of the SEED intervention were its provision of time to reflect on and discuss social and emotional well-being and its contribution to a culture of evaluating practice. Limitations: It was a challenge to retain schools over five waves of data collection. Conclusions: This trial demonstrated that the SEED intervention is an acceptable, cost-effective way to modestly improve pupil well-being and improve school climate, particularly for older boys and those with greater levels of psychological difficulties. It was beneficial during the transition from primary to secondary school, but this diminished after 6 years. The SEED intervention can be implemented alongside existing systems for addressing pupil well-being and can be complementary to other interventions. Future work: Assess whether or not the SEED intervention has a beneficial impact on academic attainment, is transferable to other countries and other organisational settings, would be strengthened by adding core training elements to the intervention process and is transferable to secondary schools. Understand the gender differences illustrated by the outcomes of this trial. Conduct further statistical research on how to handle missing data in longitudinal studies of complex social interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN51707384. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 10/3006/13) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Comparison of self-reported health & healthcare utilisation between asylum seekers and refugees: an observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Adult refugees and asylum seekers living in Western countries experience a high prevalence of mental health problems, especially post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. This study compares and contrasts the prevalence of health problems, and potential risk factors as well as the utilisation of health services by asylum seekers and refugees in the Irish context.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross sectional study using validated self reported health status questionnaires of adult asylum seekers (n = 60) and refugees (n = 28) from 30 countries, living in Ireland. Outcome measures included: general health status (SF-36), presence of PTSD symptoms and anxiety/depression symptoms. Data on chronic conditions and pre or post migration stressors are also reported. The two groups are compared for utilisation of the health care system and the use of over the counter medications.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Asylum seekers were significantly more likely than refugees to report symptoms of PTSD (OR 6.3, 95% CI: 2.2–17.9) and depression/anxiety (OR 5.8, 95% CI: 2.2–15.4), while no significant difference was found in self-reported general health. When adjusted by multivariable regression, the presence of more than one chronic disease (OR 4.0, 95%CI: 1.3–12.7; OR 3.4, 95% CI: 1.2–10.1), high levels of pre migration stressors (OR 3.6, 95% CI: 1.1–11.9; OR 3.3, 95% CI: 1.0–10.4) or post migration stressors (OR 17.3, 95% CI: 4.9–60.8; OR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.2–12.3) were independent predictors of self reported PTSD or depression/anxiety symptoms respectively, however, residence status was no longer significantly associated with PTSD or depression/anxiety. Residence status may act as a marker for other explanatory variables; our results show it has a strong relationship with post migration stressors (χ²= 19.74, df = 1, P < 0.001).</p> <p>In terms of health care utilisation, asylum seekers use GP services more often than refugees, while no significant difference was found between these groups for use of dentists, medication, hospitalisation or mental health services.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Asylum seekers have a higher level of self reported PTSD and depression/anxiety symptoms compared to refugees. However, residence status appears to act as a marker for post migration stressors. Compared to refugees, asylum seekers utilise GP services more often, but not mental health services.</p