Projected health and economic effects of the increase in childhood obesity during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: The potential cost of inaction.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of overweight and obesity in young children rose sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we estimate the potential future health and economic effects of these trends in England. METHODS: Using publicly available annual Body Mass Index (BMI) data from 2006-2022, we calculated the increase in overweight/obesity prevalence (BMI ≥85th reference percentile) during the COVID-19 pandemic among children aged 4-5 and 10-11, and variation by deprivation and ethnicity. We projected the impact of child BMI trends on adult health measures to estimate added lifelong medical and social costs. RESULTS: During 2020-2021 there were steep increases in overweight and obesity prevalence in children. By 2022, overweight and obesity prevalence in children aged 4-5 returned to expected levels based on pre-pandemic trends. However, overweight and obesity prevalence in children aged 10-11 persisted and was 4 percentage points (p<0.001) higher than expected, representing almost 56,000 additional children. The increase was twice as high in the most compared with the least deprived areas. The additional lifelong healthcare cost in this cohort will amount to £800 million with a cost to society of £8.7 billion. We did not find an increase in maternal obesity associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, however, prevalence grew faster in the post pandemic period. DISCUSSION: The return of overweight and obesity prevalence to pre-pandemic trends in children aged 4-5 provides a clear policy target for effective intervention to tackle this growing and serious population health concern.

Household food insecurity risk indices for English neighbourhoods: Measures to support local policy decisions.

BACKGROUND: In England, the responsibility to address food insecurity lies with local government, yet the prevalence of this social inequality is unknown in small subnational areas. In 2018 an index of small-area household food insecurity risk was developed and utilised by public and third sector organisations to target interventions; this measure needed updating to better support decisions in different settings, such as urban and rural areas where pressures on food security differ. METHODS: We held interviews with stakeholders (n = 14) and completed a scoping review to identify appropriate variables to create an updated risk measure. We then sourced a range of open access secondary data to develop an indices of food insecurity risk in English neighbourhoods. Following a process of data transformation and normalisation, we tested combinations of variables and identified the most appropriate data to reflect household food insecurity risk in urban and rural areas. RESULTS: Eight variables, reflecting both household circumstances and local service availability, were separated into two domains with equal weighting for a new index, the Complex Index, and a subset of these to make up the Simple Index. Within the Complex Index, the Compositional Domain includes population characteristics while the Structural Domain reflects small area access to resources such as grocery stores. The Compositional Domain correlated well with free school meal eligibility (rs = 0.705) and prevalence of childhood obesity (rs = 0.641). This domain was the preferred measure for use in most areas when shared with stakeholders, and when assessed alongside other configurations of the variables. Areas of highest risk were most often located in the North of England. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of the Compositional Domain for all areas, with inclusion of the Structural Domain in rural areas where locational disadvantage makes it more difficult to access resources. These measures can aid local policy makers and planners when allocating resources and interventions to support households who may experience food insecurity.

The Challenges of Putting Systems Thinking into Practice Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners' Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health".

In theory, 'systems thinking' offers a remarkably attractive solution to the persistent challenges of preventive public health. Haynes and colleagues' recent analysis of the Prevention Centre in Australia offers reason for optimism that it might be possible to translate this promise into action on the ground. In this commentary, we critically assess the claims from this promising case study and their broader applicability to the cause of preventive health. We argue that, in many other contexts, persistent obstacles remain, such as a lack of buy-in from senior policy actors, and a lack of tangible or concrete action following through on an abstract commitment to systems thinking.