Who wants a slimmer body? The relationship between body weight status, education level and body shape dissatisfaction among young adults in Hong Kong

Background: Body shape dissatisfaction has been thought to have an indispensable impact on weight control behaviors. We investigated the prevalence of body shape dissatisfaction (BSD) and explored its association with weight status, education level and other determinants among young adults in Hong Kong. Methods. Information on anthropometry, BSD, and socio-demographics was collected from a random sample of 1205 young adults (611 men and 594 women) aged 18-27 in a community-based household survey. BSD was defined as a discrepancy between current and ideal body shape based on a figure rating scale. Cross-tabulations, homogeneity tests and logistic regression models were applied. Results: The percentages of underweight men and women were 16.5% and 34.9% respectively, and the corresponding percentages of being overweight or obese were 26.7% and 13.2% for men and women respectively. Three-quarters of young adults had BSD. Among women, 30.9% of those underweight and 75.5% of those with normal weight desired a slimmer body shape. Overweight men and underweight women with lower education level were more likely to have a mismatch between weight status and BSD than those with higher education level. After controlling for other determinants, underweight women were found to have a higher likelihood to maintain their current body shapes than other women. Men were found to be less likely to have a mismatch between weight status and BSD than women. Conclusions: Overweight and obesity in men and underweight in women were prevalent among Hong Kong young adults. Inappropriate body shape desire might predispose individuals to unhealthy weight loss or gain behaviors. Careful consideration of actual weight status in body shape desire is needed in health promotion and education, especially for underweight and normal weight women and those with a low education level. © 2011 Cheung et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.published_or_final_versio

Financing intersectoral action for health: a systematic review of co-financing models.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors' shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility. AIM: This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded. RESULTS: Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals

Secondhand smoke in outdoor settings: smokers' consumption, non-smokers' perceptions, and attitudes towards smoke-free legislation in Spain

Objective: to describe where smokers smoke outdoors, where non-smokers are exposed outdoors to secondhand smoke (SHS), and attitudes towards smoke-free outdoor areas after the implementation of national smoke-free legislation. Design: this cross-sectional study was conducted between June 2011 and March 2012 (n=1307 participants). Setting: Barcelona Participants: representative, random sample of the adult (≥16 years) population. Primary and secondary outcomes: proportion of smoking and prevalence of exposure to SHS in the various settings according to type of enclosure. Percentages of support for outdoor smoke-free policies according to smoking status. Results: smokers reported smoking outdoors most in bars and restaurants (54.8%), followed by outdoor places at work (46.8%). According to non-smokers, outdoor SHS exposure was highest at home (42.5%) and in bars and restaurants (33.5%). Among non-smoking adult students, 90% claimed exposure to SHS on university campuses. There was great support for banning smoking in the majority of outdoor areas, which was stronger among non-smokers than smokers. Over 70% of participants supported smoke-free playgrounds, school and high school courtyards, and the grounds of healthcare centres. Conclusions: extending smoking bans to selected outdoor settings should be considered in further tobacco control interventions to protect non-smokers from SHS exposure and to establish a positive model for youth. The majority of public support for some outdoor smoke-free areas suggests that it is feasible to extend smoking bans to additional outdoor settings