Suchergebnisse

The use of planning policy to manage and create a healthy food environment has become a popular policy tool for local governments in England. To date there has been no evaluation of their short-term impact on the built environment. We assess if planning guidance restricting new fast food outlets within 400 m of a secondary school, influences the food environment in the local authority of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. We have administrative data on all food outlets in Newcastle 3 years pre-intervention 2012–2015, the intervention year 2016, and three years' post-intervention 2016–2019. We employ a difference-in-difference approach comparing postcodes within the school fast food outlet exclusion zone to those outside the fast-food exclusion zones. In the short term (3 years), planning guidance to limit the number of new fast-food outlets in a school exclusion zone did not have a statistically significant impact on the food environment when compared with a control zone.

The use of planning policy to manage and create a healthy food environment has become a popular policy tool for local governments in England. To date there has been no evaluation of their short-term impact on the built environment. We assess if planning guidance restricting new fast food outlets within 400 m of a secondary school, influences the food environment in the local authority of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. We have administrative data on all food outlets in Newcastle 3 years pre-intervention 2012–2015, the intervention year 2016, and three years' post-intervention 2016–2019. We employ a difference-in-difference approach comparing postcodes within the school fast food outlet exclusion zone to those outside the fast-food exclusion zones. In the short term (3 years), planning guidance to limit the number of new fast-food outlets in a school exclusion zone did not have a statistically significant impact on the food environment when compared with a control zone.

The environment in which we live impacts on our health. The food available to us in our environment is likely to influence what we eat and subsequently our weight. The use of planning policy can be one way for both local and national government to help shape a healthy environment. In England there are three main types of planning policy used to promote a healthy food environment: 1) restricting new fast-food outlets near schools; 2) restricting new fast-food outlets if the density of existing outlets has surpassed a certain threshold of all retail outlets, 3) restricting new fast-food outlets if childhood obesity rates are above a certain threshold. In 2015, Gateshead council, a local authority in the North East of England implemented all three types of guidance. We utilise a longitudinal administrative dataset, the Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating Scheme Data, covering the period 2012-2019 on all premises selling or preparing food in Great Britain. To analyse the impact of employing all three types of planning guidance on the density, proportion, and number of fast-food outlets in Gateshead, we employ a propensity score matching difference-in-difference approach. We match small geographical areas in Gateshead (lower super output areas) to other local authorities in the North East with similar demographic characteristics that did not implement planning guidance. Results show a reduction in density of fast-food outlets by 12.45 per 100,000 of the population and a 13.88% decrease in the proportion of fast-food outlets in Gateshead compared to other similar local authorities in the North East. There was a marginally significant reduction in the number of restaurants which became insignificant after controlling for population density. These results suggest that a multi-pronged planning approach significantly changed the proportion and density of fast-food outlets in the food environment in the short term (4 years).

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antibody testing was proposed by several countries as a surveillance tool to monitor the spread of the virus and potentially to ease restrictions. In the UK, antibody testing originally formed the third pillar of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme and was thought to offer hope that those with a positive antibody test result could return to normal life. However, at that time scientists and the public had little understanding of the longevity of COVID-19 antibodies, and whether they provided immunity to reinfection or transmission of the virus. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the UK public's understanding of COVID-19 testing, perceived test accuracy, the meaning of a positive test result, willingness to adhere to restrictive measures in response to an antibody test result and how they expect other people to respond. METHODS: On-line synchronous focus groups were conducted in April/May 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic and the most stringent period of the COVID-19 restrictive measures. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: There was confusion in responses as to whether those with a positive or negative test should return to work and which restrictive measures would apply to them or their household members. Participants raised concerns about the wider public response to positive antibody test results and the adverse behavioural effects. There were worries that antibody tests could create a divided society particularly if those with a positive test result were given greater freedoms or chose to disregard the restrictive measures. CONCLUSION: Should these tests be offered more widely, information should be developed in consultation with the public to ensure clarity and address uncertainty about test results and subsequent behaviours.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antibody testing was proposed by several countries as a surveillance tool to monitor the spread of the virus and potentially to ease restrictions. In the UK, antibody testing originally formed the third pillar of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme and was thought to offer hope that those with a positive antibody test result could return to normal life. However, at that time scientists and the public had little understanding of the longevity of COVID-19 antibodies, and whether they provided immunity to reinfection or transmission of the virus. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the UK public's understanding of COVID-19 testing, perceived test accuracy, the meaning of a positive test result, willingness to adhere to restrictive measures in response to an antibody test result and how they expect other people to respond. METHODS: On-line synchronous focus groups were conducted in April/May 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic and the most stringent period of the COVID-19 restrictive measures. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: There was confusion in responses as to whether those with a positive or negative test should return to work and which restrictive measures would apply to them or their household members. Participants raised concerns about the wider public response to positive antibody test results and the adverse behavioural effects. There were worries that antibody tests could create a divided society particularly if those with a positive test result were given greater freedoms or chose to disregard the restrictive measures. CONCLUSION: Should these tests be offered more widely, information should be developed in consultation with the public to ensure clarity and address uncertainty about test results and subsequent behaviours.

Background: Takeaway food has a relatively poor nutritional profile. Providing takeaway outlets with reduced-holed salt shakers is one method thought to reduce salt use in takeaways, but effects have not been formally tested. We aimed to determine if there was a difference in sodium content of standard fish and chip meals served by Fish & Chip Shops that use standard (17 holes) versus reduced-holed (5 holes) salt shakers, taking advantage of natural variations in salt shakers used. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all Fish & Chip Shops in two local government areas (n = 65), where servers added salt to meals as standard practice, and salt shaker used could be identified (n = 61). Standard fish and chip meals were purchased from each shop by incognito researchers and the purchase price and type of salt shaker used noted. Sodium content of full meals and their component parts (fish, chips, and fish batter) was determined using flame photometry. Differences in absolute and relative sodium content of meals and component parts between shops using reduced-holed versus standard salt-shakers were compared using linear regression before and after adjustment for purchase price and area. Results: Reduced-holed salt shakers were used in 29 of 61 (47.5 %) included shops. There was no difference in absolute sodium content of meals purchased from shops using standard versus reduced-holed shakers (mean = 1147 mg [equivalent to 2.9 g salt]; SD = 424 mg; p > 0.05). Relative sodium content was significantly lower in meals from shops using reduced-holed (mean = 142.5 mg/100 g [equivalent to 0.4 g salt/100 g]; SD = 39.0 mg/100 g) versus standard shakers (mean = 182.0 mg/100 g; [equivalent to 0.5 g salt/100 g]; SD = 68.3 mg/100 g; p = 0.008). This was driven by differences in the sodium content of chips and was extinguished by adjustment for purchase price and area. Price was inversely associated with relative sodium content (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Using reduced-holed salt shakers in Fish & Chip Shops is associated with lower relative sodium content of fish and chip meals. This is driven by differences in sodium content of chips, making our results relevant to the wide range of takeaways serving chips. Shops serving higher priced meals, which may reflect a more affluent customer base, may be more likely to use reduced-holed shakers.

Background:
There has been a rapid increase in the number of, and demand for, organisations offering behavioural science advice to government over the last ten years. Yet we know little of the state of science and the experiences of these evidence providers.
Aims and objectives:
To identify current practice in this emerging field and the factors that impact on the production of high-quality and policy-relevant research.
Methods:
A qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with representatives from a purposeful sample of 15 units in the vanguard of international behavioural science research in policy. The data were analysed thematically.
Findings:
Relationships with policymakers were important in the inception of units, research conduct, implementation and dissemination of findings. Knowledge exchange facilitated a shared understanding of policy issues/context, and of behavioural science. Sufficient funding was crucial to maintain critical capacity in the units' workforces, build a research portfolio beneficial to policymakers and the units, and to ensure full and transparent dissemination.
Discussion and conclusion:
Findings highlight the positive impact of strong evidence-provider/user relationships and the importance of governments' commitment to co-produced research programmes to address policy problems and transparency in the dissemination of methods and findings. From the findings we have created a framework, 'STEPS' (Sharing, Transparency, Engagement, Partnership, Strong relationships), of five recommendations for units working with policymakers. These findings will be of value to all researchers conducting research on behalf of government.