Tag Archives: Inequality

Two girls kissing

Do sexual minority teenagers have greater health risks?

People who identify as gay or bisexual have long been known to be more likely than others to be at risk from behaviour which can affect their health, such as drug-taking, drinking and not doing enough exercise. But how does this affect today’s teenagers? In an era of greater social liberalism might these differences be disappearing? Professor Yvonne Kelly and Dr Cara Booker discuss new research which sheds light on the issue.

Numerous studies have shown people from sexual minorities tend to suffer disproportionately from a range of health issues, yet until now there has been a paucity of up-to-date, comprehensive evidence about the level of risk faced by this group in the UK. A recent report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission called for more research.

Two studies have been able to shed new light on the issue. Evidence from Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study, examines its impact on adults and suggests problems still persist despite recent social change. And research based on the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), which has followed almost 12,000 children since their birth between 2000 and 2002, has presented an ideal opportunity to look at the health outcomes of young people while they are still growing up. 

Sexual minority adolescents

MCS is a birth cohort study which has followed up children born in the UK just after the Millennium, and it has followed up its participants at nine months, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 14 years. So using this last sweep, it was possible to look at whether sexual minority adolescents experienced more adverse outcomes than their heterosexual peers. 

Between January 2015, and April 2016, 9885 adolescents in the MCS provided a response about their sexual attraction. Six per cent identified themselves as experiencing same-sex or bisexual attraction. Of these, the large majority were female – particularly among those who said they were bisexual.

Among the 629 respondents in this group, 50 (29 female and 21 male) reported same-sex attraction only and 576 (451 female and 125 male) reported bisexual attraction – this was not the case in the samples taken for Understanding Society, where the gender split was more even.

This may be because there is a lot of fluidity in sexual orientation at younger ages – so girls who say they are bisexual at this age may not say so in the future. But the rates of young people who identify as non-heterosexual have increased over time and so we may expect more young people to be bisexual or non-heterosexual in the MCS sample, who are younger than those in the Understanding Society study.

In order to assess mental health, MCS respondents were asked if they had self-harmed in the past year; how they rated their self-esteem and their subjective wellbeing, and about their general life satisfaction. They were asked if they experienced depressive symptoms, and if they felt they were bullied or victimised. They were also asked if they had been involved in anti-social behaviour such as stealing or violence, how close they felt to their parents, whether they smoked, drank or took illegal drugs, and whether they had had unprotected sex. Their levels of physical activity and diet were also assessed.

Range of problems

The findings suggested sexual minority adolescents were more likely to suffer from a range of problems including high depressive symptoms, self-harm, lower life satisfaction, lower self-esteem and all forms of bullying and victimisation. Young people from sexual minorities also had higher odds of being less physically active, of perceiving themselves as overweight and of having dieted to lose weight. And they were more likely to suffer from more than one of these issues than their heterosexual peers were. 

However, they were no more likely to engage in violence using a weapon, regular smoking, regular cannabis use, regular drinking, or other drug use. Sexual minority adolescents did not have increased odds of engaging in sexual activity or of engaging in risky sexual behaviour, and there was no difference between sexual minority adolescents and heterosexual adolescents regarding whether they had close friendships.

It has been suggested in the past that disparities may occur because sexual minorities experience stress factors such as bullying as well as facing the stress of navigating their identity. Their experience of prejudice and possible absence of support from family and others may be linked to mental distress, and this may lead to potentially risky behaviours such as substance misuse. However, activities such as drinking, smoking, drugs and sex are also part of normal adolescent development – so we would not want to suggest they’re always a major problem.

The teenage years are a time for experimenting and pushing boundaries, something discussed in an earlier Child of our Time blog on sexual behaviour.

Sexual minorities in adulthood

All this has implications for lifelong health and social outcomes. Recent research led by Dr Cara Booker used Understanding Society data from over 40,000 individuals aged 16 and over to explore the health inequalities of sexual minority UK adults. 

Unlike the MCS study, this research included respondents who identified as ‘other’ and those who preferred not to say. And a distinction was drawn between those who identified as gay and those who identified as bisexual. Participants were asked about their physical and mental functioning, minor psychological distress, self-rated health, substance use and disability. 

Overall, heterosexual respondents had the best health while bisexual respondents had the worst. Gay and lesbian respondents reported poorer health than heterosexuals, specifically with regard to mental functioning, distress and illness. 

There were no differences in either mental or physical health between lesbian and gay respondents once socio-demographic characteristics were controlled for, and there were also some indicators on which bisexuals did not differ from other groups.

Those who were ‘other’ or preferred not to say were similar to each other and generally experienced fewer health inequalities than gay and lesbian respondents, but still had poorer health than heterosexuals. This suggests that health promotion interventions are needed for these individuals, who might not participate in interventions targeted toward known sexual minority groups. 

Range of disparities

In conclusion, these two pieces of research suggest that a range of disparities based on sexual attraction are visible as early as 14 years of age, and are likely to persist through adult life.

These results highlight the need for further prevention efforts and intervention at the school, community, and policy level to ensure that sexual minority adolescents do not face lifelong negative social, economic, and health outcomes.

Health and educational practitioners should be aware of the increased risk for adverse outcomes in sexual minority adolescents.

Schools provide an ideal infrastructure to implement effective public health change and social policies. In light of this, a new UK curriculum that teaches students about gender and relationship diversity has been developed, but the guidance around its implementation currently lacks clarity. Therefore, at the policy level, clearer guidelines for schools are needed. 

Better support for families could help, too, to alleviate tensions between parents and sexual minority adolescents. This needs further investigation. 

In conclusion, despite high-profile UK policies such as the legalisation of same sex marriage in 2013 and the introduction of sexual orientation as a protected characteristic during the lifetime of the young people in this study, the evidence presented here indicates that large inequalities in social and health outcomes still exist for sexual minority adolescents growing up in the 21st century.

Mental health, social adversity, and health-related outcomes in sexual minority adolescents: a contemporary national cohort study, by Rebekah Amos, Eric Julian Manalastas, Ross White, Henny Bos and Praveetha Patalay, was published in Lancet Child Adolescent Health 2020; 4: 36–45 https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2352-4642(19)30339-6

Sexual orientation health inequality: Evidence from Understanding Society, the United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study, by Cara L Booker, Gerulf Rieger and Jennifer B Unger, was published in Preventive Medicine 101, 2017, 126-132.

Author affiliations: 

Professor Yvonne Kelly, ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College, London

Dr Cara L Booker, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.

Active children

Might population-wide increases in physical activity reduce socio-economic inequalities in the proportion of children who are overweight?

Just half of children in the UK achieve the World Health Organisation’s targets for daily activity, and in England the Government has set its own strategy to tackle this. But would increased physical activity lead to fewer children being overweight or obese? And would it help to address social inequalities in the proportion of children who are overweight? Research from Anna Pearce and colleagues at the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health in London suggests more physical activity is unlikely to reduce the prevalence or inequalities in levels of overweight.

Childhood overweight is an important public health problem, with particularly high levels in children living in disadvantaged circumstances. Physical activity is an important determinant of childhood overweight. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends children should undertake 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity every day. But for many families in England, as in other high-income countries, this is an aspiration rather than the reality.

The UK Government has identified a number of strategies to increase activity among children.  But the potential for physical activity initiatives to help children achieve a healthy weight, if scaled up at the population level, hasn’t previously been assessed. In our research, we focused on the WHO target, and on the likelihood that achieving this will reduce socio-economic differences in levels of overweight or obesity.

We wanted to know how hypothetical government interventions to increase activity might reduce the prevalence and inequalities in childhood overweight at age eleven. Could population-wide interventions, aimed at all, or targeted interventions with high-risk groups, have the greatest effect?

What, specifically, might happen to the prevalence and social distribution of childhood overweight if all children achieved the WHO’s target of 60 minutes’ activity per day? What if we are only able to achieve smaller increases in activity than those required to meet the WHO target?

In our study, 27% children were overweight at age eleven. We found that hypothetical universal interventions to increase physical activity could lead to moderate reductions in this. For example, if 95 per cent of children met the target of 60 minutes of activity per day, the prevalence of overweight (including obesity) would drop to 22 per cent. But more realistic scenarios, in which interventions led to more moderate improvements in physical activity levels (of only a few minutes each day), would achieve only small reductions in overweight within the population.

Children from the most affluent backgrounds were less likely to be overweight  – around one in five children in the top fifth of household incomes were overweight or obese at 11y, compared to one in three among those in the bottom fifth of household incomes. Our analysis suggested these stark social differences in overweight are unlikely to be reduced through meeting the WHO physical activity target. This is partly because children from the highest income group had the lowestlevel of daily activity, with a median of 59 minutes’ moderate to vigorous activity compared 62 minutes for the lowest fifth of the income range.

Even more intensive intervention scenarios, given only to high-risk families (for example those who were overweight or obese at an earlier age, or those living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods), appeared unlikely to address the stark social inequalities experienced by this cohort of children.

Activity targets

The WHO’s physical activity targets are ambitious and, if achieved, are likely to benefit children’s health and wellbeing in a multitude of ways. However our findings suggest that if the Government is serious about supporting children and families – particularly those from poorer backgrounds – to maintain healthy weights, it needs to look elsewhere.

We need, therefore, to know more about how other types of initiatives to reduce childhood overweight might work. Research which aims to inform this debate should look not just at activity levels but also at environmental factors that influence diet, such as taxes on high-sugar foods and foods provided in early-years settings.

What if all children achieved WHO recommendations on physical activity? Estimating the impact on socioeconomic inequalities in childhood overweight in the UK Millennium Cohort Study, by Anna Pearce, Steven Hope, Lucy Griffiths, Mario-Cortina-Borja, Catherine Chittleborough and Catherine Law, is published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, 2019, 134–147.

Anna Pearce is based at the University of Glasgow but carried out this work out in her previous position at the UCL Institute of Child Health.

Steven Hope, Mario Cortina-Borja, and Catherine Law are based at the Population, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.

Lucy Griffiths is based at Swansea University but carried out this work out in her previous position at the UCL Institute of Child Health…

 Catherine Chittleborough is at the School of Public Health, Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

This blog is based on independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (Children’s Policy Research Unit). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

 

Wheezing: Can breastfeeding for longer make a difference?

Public health bodies put a lot of effort into encouraging mothers to breastfeed, and for good reasons. Successive studies have shown breastfeeding has a range of health benefits, including a lower risk of wheezing illnesses, which can be linked to asthma. But which of these illnesses are most likely to respond? Is a breastfed child less likely to develop wheezing after age five, or age seven, for instance? Or is the protective effect mainly measurable only in younger children? Professor Maria Quigley from the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at the University of Oxford, along with colleagues at Oxford and UCL, has been looking at how and when breastfeeding is associated with wheezing.

Asthma is the most common chronic condition affecting children and young people in the UK. It’s the most common reason why children are admitted to hospital, and sadly each year a few still die from the condition. According to the British Lung Foundation three children in every hundred under the age of five have been diagnosed with asthma at some point; and by age 10 that figure rises to one in 10.

There’s no cure, and so the priority for public health bodies has been to understand the disease better, to manage it better and to learn more about the factors that can protect us from it. One such protective factor is breastfeeding: two recent pieces of research have shown there is a lower risk among breastfed children, but that the effect is stronger among the very young – both for asthma and for wheezing, which has many causes and which does not necessarily develop into asthma.

Childhood wheezing can follow a variety of patterns – it can set in early but clear up before adulthood, for instance, or it can start later but continue into later life. Some wheezing will start in childhood and will continue.

Millennium Cohort Study

We wanted to look at how breastfeeding might affect these different types, so we used data from the Millennium Cohort Study, which has followed the lives of almost 19,000 children born in the UK between September 2000 and January 2002. Their parents were interviewed when they were 9 months old, and again when they were 3, 5, 7 and 11 years.

Our study focused on just over 10,000 children who were seen at all of those points and who were the product of single as opposed to multiple birth. Mothers were asked whether they had tried to breastfeed, and for how long their children had been breastfed.

Among our sample, seven out of 10 children had been breastfed: a little more than one in ten of the study sample for less than a week; a fifth for between one and three weeks, just over one in six for three to six months and around a quarter for six to nine months.

We found that at age 9 months, 6.5 per cent of children had a history of wheezing. At age 3 years, 19.5 per cent had such a history in the past year. As the children got older, though, this proportion decreased – 16 per cent at age five, 11.8 per cent at age seven and 11.4 per cent at age 11.

Overall, 37 per cent of children had suffered from wheezing at least once between 9 months and 11 years. A little under a fifth (18.8 per cent) had wheezing at younger age which cleared up when they got older, while 6.2 per cent had wheezing which started later and 11.8 per cent had persistent wheezing.

Feeding and wheezing

When we looked at the association between breastfeeding and wheezing, we found the children who had been breastfed for longest were less likely to suffer from wheezing.

But this effect lessened with time. For example, those breastfed for six to nine months were less likely to wheeze between the ages of nine months and five years, but by the age of 11 this group had no significant advantage over those who were breastfed for less time.

What does our study tell us about the relationship between breastfeeding and wheezing? The picture is a complex one. There are many causes of wheezing and of asthma, and those causes change over time. So in order to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect, we would need a much more complex dataset. It would be interesting, for instance, to look at clinical information on children’s allergies or their lung function.

But what we can say is that age matters – in order to understand how breastfeeding affects the development of wheezing during childhood, we must take a longer and more nuanced view.

Breastfeeding And Childhood Wheeze: Age-Specific Analyses and Longitudinal Wheezing Phenotypes as Complementary Approaches To The Analysis Of Cohort Data is research by Maria Quigley (University of Oxford), Claire Carson (University of Oxford) and Yvonne Kelly (UCL). It is published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Calling time on a life of likes could be key to girls’ happiness

There have been increasing calls in recent months for more to be done to prepare children for the emotional demands of social media. Just a few weeks ago, the Government’s Science and Technology Committee announced an inquiry into the impact of social media on the health of young people. But do girls and boys use social media as much as each other and is all this time spent Facebooking, Whatsapping and Snapchatting having a detrimental effect on their happiness and well-being? Cara Booker from the University of Essex, in collaboration with collleagues from UCL, has been looking at trends in social media interaction and well-being in nearly 10,000 10-15 year-olds in the UK over a 5 year period. Their findings indicate that girls may be at greater risk and therefore a focus for those looking to intervene to protect and promote children’s happiness.

The Government’s inquiry into the impact of social media on the health of young people comes hard on the heels of a report from the Children’s Commissioner for England, which says that children between the ages of 8 and 12 find it hard to manage the impact of online life and become anxious about their identity as they crave ‘likes’ and comments for validation. 

An explosion in digital and social media platforms has revolutionised the way we all consume media with a recent report showing that young people aged 12-15 spending more time online than they do watching TV. Indeed, it seems a long time ago that parents’ prime concern around media was how much or what kind of TV their child was watching.

All these major developments have taken place at a time when we also know that young people are becoming less and less happy. In the most recent United Nations Children’s Fund report, UK adolescents are ranked in the bottom third on overall well-being, below Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Portugal.

Of course, it’s important to remember that the internet has done a great deal of good for children: connecting them with friends and family who may be far away, providing great opportunities to widen horizons and learn new things. These things have been shown in other studies to be linked with increased levels of happiness and well-being in children

On the negative side, social media use has been linked with obesity, cyberbullying, low self-esteem and lack of physical activity, all things that can affect the lives of children as they move through school and into adulthood and work.

Social media experiences

Young people who took part in the Understanding Society survey, were asked if they belonged to a social web-site and then how many hours they spent ‘chatting’ or ‘interacting with friends’ on a normal school day. They could select a range of responses from none to more than 7 hours.

At age 10, 50 per cent of girls and 55 per cent of boys said they had no internet access or spent no time on social media. At 15 years, this dropped to 8 and 10 per cent respectively.

Ten per cent of ten year old girls reported spending one to three hours a day (compared with 7 per cent of boys) and this increased to 43 per cent of girls at age 15 (and 31 per cent of boys).

At age 10 only a very small percent of girls/boys were spending 4 hours plus a day on social media. But by the age of 15, that rose to 16 per cent of girls and 10 percent of boys.

Levels of happiness 🙂 🙁

Young people who took part in the survey were asked about satisfaction with schoolwork, friends, family, appearance, school and life as a whole and this was used to create an overall happiness score for them.

They were also asked about any social and emotional difficulties they might be facing using the well-established Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) with a higher score indicating more problems.

For both boys and girls, levels of happiness decreased between the ages of 10 and 15, however the decrease was greater for girls than for boys. Additionally, whilst SDQ scores increased for girls between the ages of 10 and 15, they decreased for boys.

10 year-old girls who spent an hour or more on a school day chatting online had higher SDQ scores (more social and emotional problems) than girls of the same age who spent less or no time on social media. In addition, the score (number of problems) increased as they got older.

Why the gender difference?

So why the gender difference? This is hard to unpick and not something we were able to look at specifically in our research. It may say something about the different ways that girls and boys interact with social media. For example, girls may be more likely than boys to compare their lives with those of friends and peers – whether those are ‘filtered’ selfies or positive posts about friendships, relationships or material possessions – these could lead to feelings of inadequacy, lower levels of satisfaction and poorer wellbeing.

The pressures associated with having peers like or ‘approve’ status updates and a perceived fall in or lack of popularity could add further pressure at, what for many teenagers is a tricky time in their lives.

Boys are more likely to be gaming than interacting online in the way just described and that wasn’t covered in this research, so it’s possible that changes in well-being may be more related to gaming success or skill.

What needs to change?

It’s clear that social media is no short-lived phenomenon and our research indicates that girls, possibly because of the way in which they interact online and the amount of time they spend doing so could be at greater risk.

In her report, A Life of Likes, the Children’s Commissioner Anne Longfield has called for more to be done to check and stop underage use and to prevent children becoming over dependent on likes and comments and “adapting their offline lives to fit an online image”, something she believes can lead to an anxiety about ‘keeping up appearances ‘ as they get older.

Our research really adds weight to recent calls for the technology industry to look at in-built time limits. Young people need access to the internet for homework, for watching TV and to keep in touch with their friends of course, but a body of evidence is emerging to show that substantial amounts of time spent chatting, sharing, liking and comparing on social media on school days is far from beneficial especially for girls.

Gender differences in the association between age trends of social media interaction and wellbeing among 10-15 year olds in the UK, is research by Cara Booker (University of Essex), Yvonne Kelly (University College London) and Amanda Sacker (University College London) and is published in BMC Public Health.

Off the scales: time to act on childhood obesity

By 2050, it is said that obesity could cost the NHS almost £10 billion a year, with the full economic cost rising from around £27 billion today to £50 billion by then. Today, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) publishes its report, Off the scales: time to act on childhood obesity. It calls on the Government to put prevention, health, inequality and cross-departmental collaboration at the heart of its efforts to tackle childhood obesity, drawing particular attention to the need to address the question of why poorer children are at ever greater risk of being obese. It’s a question researchers at the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies at UCL, including our editor Yvonne Kelly, have been among the first to address.

There have been numerous major studies on childhood obesity over the past 10 years, many of which have shown the links with poverty. But our research looks specifically at why children from disadvantaged families are significantly more likely to be obese than their better off peers.

To examine this as robustly and rigorously as we could, we used data from the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) which has tracked the lives of nearly 20,000 children from across the UK since the turn of the century. Using a range of measurements taken when the children were aged 5 and 11 together with detailed information about their backgrounds and family circumstances, we were able to demonstrate just how key poverty was in respect of their obesity.

At age 5, poor children were almost twice as likely to be obese compared with their better off peers. By the age of 11, the gap had nearly tripled.

Knowing as we do that obese children are less likely than their peers to grow into economically successful adults and that obesity is clearly linked with a range of chronic diseases, it’s reasonable to say that for these children, the future is far from bright. From a policy perspective it is also clear that unless the gap between rich and poor children can be closed the chances of reducing the overall obesity trend, as the Government states it is committed to doing, are pretty slim.

How is poverty linked to obesity?

The MCS collects a broad range of data, allowing us to dig beneath these headline numbers to tease out some of the specific ways in which relative poverty in childhood leads to an increased risk of obesity.

To examine this question of whether a parent’s own lifestyle might have a role, we looked at factors previously shown to be linked to the increased risk of obesity, such as whether the mother smoked during pregnancy, how long she breastfed for and whether the child was introduced to solid food before the age of four months.

We could also factor in the degree to which a mother was herself overweight or obese and assess children’s physical behaviour, such as how often they exercised, played and how many hours they spent watching TV or playing on a computer, and the time that they went to bed. We looked at whether the child skipped breakfast, how much fruit they ate and how often they had sweet drinks.

A lot of these factors were relevant. A mother’s behaviour when her child was very young was certainly important. Markers of an ‘unhealthy’ lifestyle here could mean as much as a 20 per cent additional risk of obesity for a child.

Obese and overweight children living in poor families were more likely to have mothers who did not breastfeed or breastfed for a shorter duration, who introduced solid foods early in infancy, who smoked during pregnancy, and who were overweight or obese. The poorest children were also more likely to spend more time watching TV and using a PC (and so have greater exposure to food and drink advertising), experience later and more irregular bedtimes, do less sports and be more physically inactive, engage less in active play with their parent, live in an area without a playground, and not have breakfast every day.

5-year-olds from poorer families were also much more likely to gain excess weight up to age 11 than richer children, leading us to conclude that the earlier certain risk factors can be challenged and the appropriate support provided for the least well off families, the greater the chance of positive impact on the risk of obesity and in a reduction in inequality.

Pathways to obesity

More recently we have identified four BMI trajectories for children. The good news is that 80 per cent of them are on a stable path where, on average, from when they’re born through to age 11, they are not overweight.

There is a small group of children who are obese at age 3 but then join the stable group by age 7. We call them the ‘decreasing’ group. There is a ‘moderate increasing group’ (13.1 per cent) where children are not overweight at age 3 but whose BMIs increase throughout childhood into the overweight (but not obese) range. Finally we have a ‘high increasing’ group of children (2.5 per cent) who are obese at age 3 and whose BMI continues to increase.

From an inequality perspective, what’s most striking here is that the wealthiest children are least likely to be in the ‘moderate increasing’ BMI group whilst the poorest children are more than twice as likely to be on the high increasing path.

Today’s CSJ report agrees with our analysis that early intervention is key and, in line with it, proposes three key early years intervention opportunities to ensure children get the healthiest start possible before they reach primary school age.

The report acknowledges that the Government is already trying to persuade families to eat more healthily and take more exercise. But it has joined a body of voices critical of the Childhood Obesity Plan, which, it believes, “fails to put reducing inequality as a goal … despite acknowledging that the childhood obesity burden falls hardest on the poorest children.”

Certainly our body of evidence indicates that policy makers need to acknowledge and address inequality as a root cause of obesity. Doing something about the structural factors in people’s lives is what is needed rather than ‘tinkering around the edges’ of the problem.

Today the CSJ asks why there are disproportionately high levels of obesity, particularly childhood obesity, in our most deprived communities. Our research has gone some way to answering that question, and makes it clear that there is no simple one-stop shop solution.

Obesity is caused by a combination of environmental, biological, cultural and psychological factors, where one factor does not dominate and yet our obsessional search for the ‘one thing’ that can tackle obesity continues. If the Government is going to reduce obesity rates, it will indeed, need to introduce multiple bold measures in tandem across the entire ecosystem and recognise that success may only be measurable after a few years.

Why are poorer children at higher risk of obesity and overweight? A UK cohort study is research by Alice Goisis, Amanda Sacker and Yvonne Kelly and is published in the European Journal of Public Health

BMI Development and Early Adolescent Psychosocial Well-Being: UK Millennium Cohort Study is research by Yvonne Kelly, Praveetha Patalay, Scott Montgomery and Amanda Sacker and is published in Pediatrics

An equal start: longitudinal evidence to support children’s healthy development

Using longitudinal evidence to support children’s healthy development and give them an equal start in life is the subject of our editor Yvonne Kelly’s keynote address at the Growing up in Ireland Annual Conference in Dublin today.

Her talk discusses findings from the most recent of the British ‘birth ‘ cohort studies – the Millennium Cohort Study that have so far informed policy development. They include work by researchers at the ESRC Centre for Lifecourse Studies where Yvonne is based on alcohol consumption during pregnancy, breastfeeding and the introduction of solid foods, the physical punishment of children , childhood obesity, reading to children in the early years, and sleep patterns throughout childhood.

She will also share work with the potential to inform future policy challenges such as young people’s drinking, social media use and mental health.

Ahead of her talk, she said:

“It is well established that what happens in the early years of life has long-lasting consequences for health and social success across the lifespan. Stark social inequalities in children’s health and development exist and emerge early in life. It is therefore crucial to identify potential tipping points and opportunities for intervention   during childhood with the potential to affect change and improve life chances.”

 

 

Equally protected children: one step closer

In 2015 UCL researchers Anja Heilmann, Yvonne Kelly and Richard Watt produced a report, which showed that there was ample evidence that physical punishment can damage children and escalate into physical abuse. Together with the children’s charities that commissioned the report, they called for urgent action to provide children with the same legal protection against violence that British adults enjoy. The report was at the heart of Scottish MSP John Finnie’s proposed Children (Equal Protection from Assault) Bill which the Scottish Government have just announced that they will support in their programme for the coming year. The Bill would make Scotland the first UK country to outlaw all physical punishment by removing the defence of “justifiable assault” of children, and giving them the same protection as adults. Lead researcher, Anja Heilmann, reflects on the news and what she hopes it might mean for the human rights of children in Scotland and elsewhere.

On 11 May 2017, John Finnie MSP proposed a Bill to the Scottish Parliament to “give children equal protection from assault by prohibiting the physical punishment of children by parents and others caring for or in charge of children”.

After a three month consultation, which received more than 650 responses, the majority positive (75 per cent), that Bill became part of the Scottish Government’s plans for the next year, as Nicola Sturgeon announced she would not oppose it.

If passed, the Bill will prohibit the physical punishment of children by ending the existing common-law position that physical punishment by parents can be defended as reasonable chastisement and therefore be lawful. The Bill will not create a new criminal offence, as the common law offence of assault will apply (with a modification removing the reasonable chastisement defence).

It’s a far cry from similar efforts made in Scotland in 2002 to prohibit the physical punishment of children under the age of three. Back then, not only did a majority of MSPs reject the idea, but it was branded as “ridiculous” and an unwelcome intrusion into family life by many parents and the media.

15 years on it seems attitudes may have changed significantly. In the foreword to the Bill, John Finnie himself said:

“We would no longer consider it acceptable…. to allow our children to roam freely in the back of the car when going on a journey. Neither would we dream of taking them to a cinema if they had to watch a film through a fug of cigarette smoke … Attitudes towards these and many other fundamental societal issues have dramatically changed.”

Those attitudes changed as the result of a clear presentation of the evidence – the hard facts about the damage that those behaviours could cause.

We believe that, in this case, our evidence has made it clear for all to see that hitting children can not only damage them, but it carries the risk of escalation into physical abuse. It is a clear violation of international human rights law and children should and must be afforded the same rights as adults in this respect.

Overwhelming evidence

The evidence for the detrimental effects of physical punishment is vast and consistent. In short, our summary of the available evidence showed that physical punishment was related to increased aggression, delinquency and other anti-social behaviour over time. It also showed the more physical punishment suffered by a child, the worse the subsequent problem behaviour.

There was also a clear link between physical punishment and more serious child maltreatment and negative effects continued into adulthood, including problems of drug and alcohol dependency.

Half-hearted responses to recent human rights rulings condemning the physical punishment of children need to become wholehearted changes to the law, not tinkering that does just enough to meet the minimum requirements of those judgments rather than properly respect the rights of children.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is unequivocal – all forms of corporal punishment of children are unacceptable. Let’s hope the Scottish Parliament can find the courage to make that statement a reality and show the rest of the UK the way.

As Martin Crewe of Barnardo’s Scotland stated:

“This is a huge step forward and sends a very clear message about the kind of Scotland we want to see for our children.”

Personally, I am hoping it’s a kind of Scotland and indeed UK, we WILL see in the not too distant future and I appeal to all MSPs to listen to the evidence and support the Bill.

Equally Protected? A review of the evidence on the physical punishment of children by Dr Anja Heilmann, Professor Yvonne Kelly and Professor Richard G Watt was commissioned by NSPCC Scotland, CHILDREN 1st, Barnardo’s Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

Why reading is key to giving our kids a great start in life

A growing body of research is pointing to how important and valuable reading is in giving children the best possible start in life, not just for academic success but more broadly including for a child’s mental health and happiness.

In this special episode of the Child of our Time Podcast, Professor Yvonne Kelly is joined by Jonathan Douglas, CEO of the National Literacy Trust and researcher Christina Clark, also from the  Trust. They discuss important new evidence about the benefits of reading for individual children and in addressing social inequalities.

Useful links

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS

Why mental health is not your average problem

There have been numerous reports in recent months of a growing crisis in children and young people’s mental health. From increased suicide attempts and incidents of self-harm to reports of a complete lack of appropriate services, it’s said that young people are facing unprecedented social pressures and that society’s response has been inadequate. When it comes to trends over time in the mental wellbeing of young people, the evidence to date is conflicting. Meanwhile, new research by Andy Ross and colleagues at the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies at UCL shows that the way we look at those trends may be masking an important story that could help those trying to tackle the problem to identify those most at risk of serious mental health problems.

There are few more high profile health issues at the moment than the mental health crisis among young people. The younger Royals may have helped raise public awareness about the need for more open conversations, but they agree the job is far from done. From a policy perspective, there are pledges of mental health legislation reform in the Queen’s Speech promises from Teresa May that her Government will “ensure that mental health is prioritised in the NHS in England”. But a recent report from NHS Providers says the government’s commitment to parity of esteem between mental and physical health services is being undermined by a failure to ensure funding increases reach the frontline.

Having a full and clear grasp of the scale of the problem and how young people’s mental wellbeing is changing over time will be key to any policies that may be developed to tackle it.

One of the main problems facing those trying to better understand the extent of the problem and whether the situation is getting better or worse, is that the evidence presented to date has been somewhat conflicting and, in some cases, doesn’t give the whole picture.

Some research has shown young people’s mental health deteriorating in the nineties and then stabilising and slightly improving in the early 2000s, whilst other work has evidenced a steady decline. Findings have also been different depending on whether it is teachers, parents or the young person themselves who are asked to report the symptoms.

Trends over time

We wanted to see whether we could add to and improve on the available evidence and show a more nuanced picture of mental health problems among young people by looking at trends over time, not just in respect of average levels of mental health, but also across the spectrum in levels of mental health. In simple terms, we were looking to see whether there were increases in the number of young people with unusually low levels of mental distress at the same time as increases in the numbers of those with very high levels of distress over an 18-year period.

Making use of information collected between 1991-2008 from more than 6,000 young people who took part in the British Household Panel Survey, we looked closely at their self-reported psychological distress. Once a year, young people between the ages of 16-24, were asked whether and how often, for example, they had experienced the loss of sleep through worry, a loss of confidence, felt constantly under strain, unhappy or depressed. They were also asked about positive symptoms such as their ability to concentrate and face up to their problems.

All this information was then combined to create an overall psychological distress score on a scale of 0-36, with high scores indicating high levels of psychological distress.

When we looked at the average psychological distress scores for young women in the study, we saw a small but significant increase over the 18-year period, indicating that, for this group, the situation worsened – in other words, their mental health deteriorated.

No increase was detected in the average scores for young men, which could be interpreted as a sign that levels of mental health among this group remained fairly stable.

At every time point, scores for women were worse than they were for men and this gap increased over time.

A story of polarisation

When we drilled deeper into the scores, however, the story changed a little. For young women there was a very clear and consistent increase in high and very high scores, following the overall increase in average scores mentioned above. The prevalence of those with high scores (17 and higher) increased from 12.8 per cent in 1991 to 18.8 per cent in 2008, and the prevalence of those with very high scores (20 and higher) from 6.6 per cent to 11.9 per cent. At the same time, however, there was also a small increase in the prevalence of those with scores much lower than average (5 and lower) from 10.6 per cent to 13.0 per cent.

It seems that when we move beyond looking only at average mental health scores over time, we identify two very different yet concurrent pictures of young women’s mental health. An increase in the number of young women presenting very poor levels of psychological distress, whilst at the same time an increase in young women with far better levels of mental health than average. In other words, over time, the mental wellbeing of young women appears to have become polarised.

Previously, our findings suggested that levels of mental health among young men had remained stable. However, when we look at both low and high scores over time, we find a very clear and consistent increase in low and very low scores, suggesting an overall improvement in levels of mental health among young men.

The prevalence of those with low and very low scores increased from 8.1 per cent to 15.6 per cent and from 2.1 per cent to 5.9 per cent respectively. At the other end of the scale however, whilst there was an increase in prevalence of those with high and very high scores, this increase was too small for us to consider it statistically significant[1]. Nevertheless, by considering trends at both ends of the spectrum we identified an improvement in young men’s mental health, which was otherwise ‘hidden’ when we only looked at average scores over time.

Although our study did not delve deeply into the backgrounds and circumstances of the young people with low and high scores, we did look at income levels to see if increasing levels of inequality might explain what we were seeing. It doesn’t appear to.

What we did find was evidence to support earlier research, which suggests that girls might feel increased pressure to achieve academically, which could contribute to increased levels of psychological distress.

Doing it for themselves

We are yet to explore causes for these trends, however one area that remains significantly under researched is the idea that we are becoming a more individualistic society, in which there are increased expectations placed on young people and an emphasis on them “doing it for themselves”. This includes increased pressure to take responsibility not just for one’s successes, but also for one’s failures, previously thought of as misfortunes, such as unemployment, illness and addiction. It is easy to imagine how the personalising of one’s failings could contribute to a young person’s poor mental health, or how they might develop a fear of failure even.

On the other hand, taking more responsibility for their own destiny could be empowering when things go well, boosting their self-esteem and confidence.

Evidence of polarising trends in young women’s mental health could be the first step in linking time trends to the sort of cultural and societal individualization that is being increasingly talked about amongst those concerned with the health and wellbeing of the UK’s young people.

For young women, continuing gender inequalities (some legislative, some cultural), which serve to frustrate women’s dreams of self-realisation, might also help to explain the differences in poor levels of mental health in particular that we see between them and young men.

By 2020, the NHS has promised that 70,000 more young people will be able to access services for their mental health problems. Robust evidence on trends and how the story of young people’s mental health is changing over time will be key to ensuring those services are provided effectively and efficiently.

Time trends in mental well-being: the polarisation of young people’s psychological distress is research by Andy Ross, Amanda Sacker and Yvonne Kelly and is published in the Journal of Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Photo credit: Allan Bergman

Tackling the childhood obesity epidemic: Can regular bedtimes help?

Nearly one in five 10 and 11-year-olds in England is obese, according to NHS figures. With childhood obesity posing not just a nationwide, but a worldwide health threat, public health researchers around the globe are striving to establish which aspects of a young child’s life might set them on a path to being obese later on. Associate Professor Sarah Anderson from The Ohio State University College of Public Health and colleagues from University College London outline the first research to try to disentangle the role of children’s routines and behaviour at age 3 on obesity at age 11 and show that bedtime routines and learning to manage emotions really do matter.

The UK’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Dame Sally Davies has warned that the health of millions of children is in jeopardy and is concerned that being overweight is becoming the norm. She fears half the population could be obese by 2050 at a cost of billions of pounds to the health service and wider economy.

The latest statistics highlight a stark contrast between the wealthiest and poorest families, with childhood obesity rates in the most deprived areas more than double those in the most affluent areas.

Despite the publication in August 2016 of the Government’s long-awaited childhood obesity strategy, charities and health organisations remain highly critical, describing it as a watered-down effort that puts business interests ahead of those of public health. Even the recent introduction of the so-called ‘sugar-tax’ on soft drinks has been met with scepticism in some quarters.

To help inform public health strategies going forward, our researchers looked at the bedtime, mealtime and tv/video routines of very young children and their emotional and behavioural development to see if, at this early stage, it is possible to identify those most at risk of becoming obese.

The study includes information on nearly 11,000 children collected through the UK Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). When the children were three, their parents reported whether children always, usually, sometimes, or never or almost never had a regular bedtime and mealtime, and the amount of television and video they watched each day.

They were also asked a series of questions about the child’s behaviour during the previous six months. Questions were about how children cope with emotions and their persistence and independence in play, including how easily the child became frustrated and whether they sought help from adults when faced with a difficult task. This was to get an idea of how well the child was able to ‘self-regulate’ their behaviour in these areas.

Regular routines

Children with regular bed and mealtimes and who watched less television were better able to control their emotions than their peers with less regular and consistent routines.

At 11-years-old, 6.2 per cent (682) of the children in the MCS were obese, with obesity more common in lower income and less educated families.

Of the routines we studied, inconsistent bedtime was most strongly associated with the risk of obesity, supporting recent findings by our UCL colleagues which showed that young children who skipped breakfast and went to bed at irregular times were more likely to be obese at age 11, stressing the importance of adequate sleep for preventing childhood obesity.

Even children who ‘usually’ had a regular bedtime were 20 per cent more likely to be obese than those who ‘always’ went to bed at around the same time.

Regular bedtimes and obesity

Surprisingly, toddlers with irregular meal times had a lower risk of obesity at age 11. Once other routines were factored in, television viewing was not related to obesity, although it is important to note that computer use was not taken into account, and the media environment for young children today is different than it was when children in MCS were young.

There was also a clear link between lower levels of emotional self-control in early childhood and obesity later on. Children with poor emotion regulation at age 3 were over 50 per cent more likely to be obese when studied at age 11.

Children’s level of persistence and independence was not linked to later obesity, however, and it is possible that this could be explained by the relative immaturity of the parts of the brain responsible for a child’s cognitive compared with their emotional development at this young age.

Strongest risk

Our study is the first to look at the relationship between a child’s routines, their ability to regulate their emotions and behaviour and how these factors work together to predict obesity.

The two strongest risk factors for obesity were irregular bedtime and a poor ability to control emotions and these were completely independent of each other. In other words, the link between bedtimes and obesity could not be explained away by a child’s inability to regulate their emotions.

There is a need to look more closely at the timing and regularity of children’s mealtimes and how they impact obesity later on, as we think there may be a lot more factors at play than we have considered here. We also need to better understand how the development of emotional and cognitive self-regulation interacts with metabolic, behavioural and social pathways to obesity.

However, our study supports previous research showing that children’s emotional regulation develops within a family context which includes routines.

One message from our study is crystal clear. To be effective, obesity strategies must target early childhood, and must find a way to support parents, especially those from the most deprived areas, to introduce and maintain consistent bedtimes and other home routines, as well as help children regulate emotions and respond to stress.

Another key message is that one size does not fit all. There is a lot going on in children’s lives that is important for their health and development. Saying that, it would seem that getting our children to bed at the same time every night could be a simple, cost-effective tool in the tool-kit to get them off to a good start and maybe in the larger battle against obesity.

Self-regulation and household routines at age three and obesity at age 11: Longitudinal analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study is research by Sarah Anderson from The Ohio State University College of Public Health; Amanda Sacker and Yvonne Kelly from University College London and Robert Whitaker of Temple University, Philadelphia.