Reflecting on parental insights into healthy lifestyles: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Children living in the most deprived regions are more than twice as likely as their affluent peers to be obese. One way we can explain the social gradient of health (determined by relative position on the scale of social disadvantage or advantage) is by identifying the barriers and drivers to health that different groups of people experience. This study explored the understanding and perceptions of (and barriers and drivers to) a healthy lifestyle to investigate how commissioned services can better support residents to enable behaviour change in an area of high social deprivation. This community engagement activity was also conducted to inform commissioning decisions in children's public health services. METHODS: We used a qualitative study design with a semi-structured interview schedule. Four focus groups (5-8 participants, n=26) were conducted in an area of high deprivation in northwest England. Parents or carers were invited to attend anonymously by the Public Health Community Engagement Officer (in June 2022). The inclusion criteria were previous attendance on a weight management programme. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Engagement activities do not require ethics approval. All participants provided written informed consent to take part. No further information was collected about personal characteristics. FINDINGS: The study participants demonstrated an awareness and understanding of factors affecting child and family health and health behaviours: healthy eating, exercise, mental health and emotional wellbeing, family values and attitudes towards a healthy lifestyle, cooking and budgeting, wider social connections, access to open spaces, availability of local activities, costs (including hidden costs), and structural barriers. INTERPRETATION: Using the finding that participants recognise barriers and drivers to behaviour change beyond knowledge and skills, we reflect on why there was no take up for a commissioned intervention that aimed to address childhood obesity in the Lancashire area. These reflections inform arguments for an alternative model of service commission that relies less on established randomised trial evidence base and more on participatory codesign and a place-based approach (working with populations' existing knowledge and skills) and is particularly sensitive to people's own perception of the specific drivers and barriers they experience to behaviour change. Limitations include sampling from an area with low diversity and selection of participants who have previously agreed to uptake a weight management intervention. FUNDING: None.

Developing Autonomy and Transitional Paternalism.

Adolescents, in many jurisdictions, have the power to consent to life saving treatment but not necessarily the power to refuse it. A recent defence of this asymmetry is Neil Manson's theory of 'transitional paternalism'. Transitional paternalism holds that such asymmetries are by-products of sharing normative powers. However, sharing normative powers by itself does not entail an asymmetry because transitional paternalism can be implemented in two ways. Manson defends the asymmetry-generating version of transitional paternalism in the clinical context, arguing that it maximizes respect for adolescent autonomy. This article offers an alternative argument in favour of the asymmetry-generating form of transitional paternalism, one that makes appeal to obligations that individuals have to develop self-governance in others. We should share normative powers asymmetrically in the clinical context for three reasons. First, the asymmetric version of transitional paternalism takes seriously duties to support adolescents' developing autonomy, alongside other duties that adults have to young people. It does so by enabling young people to be involved in important decisions that they would otherwise be excluded from. This is of value because participation of this sort is central to the cultivation of their self-governance. Second, only the asymmetric version gives young people a voice in respect of all clinical actions, and only the asymmetric version leaves open the possibility that the coarse lines of legislation might be 'fine-tuned' in individual cases. Third, the asymmetric sharing of normative powers is consistent with the kind of social arrangements that best support autonomy.