Search

Additional file 2. CONNECTS food systems map: Domain, node and theme summaries.

Additional file 1. Workshop participants.

Background: One in five families with children in the UK live in a household where they cannot regularly access affordable and healthy food, known as ‘food insecurity’. This negatively affects physical and mental health. Organisations across the UK called ‘community food aid organisations’ provide support with emergency food and/or by preventing people needing emergency food. This might be done, for example, by helping people to claim available benefits or providing credit for their utility bills. Only about half of those who need support use a food aid organisation, in part because people feel ashamed. Local governments have asked us to identify which types of food organisations are best at preventing people needing emergency food and what it is specifically that they do to help people who are food insecure. We will also look at how easy food organisations are to approach and whether they support everyone in need. Aim: To investigate what approaches used by community food aid organisations are most likely to help prevent the need for emergency food in two multi-cultural populations in the North and South of England and use the research to inform local authorities as to how best to invest in these or other resources. Methods: Research in Bradford and Tower Hamlets (London): 1: Researchers will listen to food food aid organisation users and people working in voluntary organisations and local governments to understand how different organisations work together and the role they play in peoples’ lives. This will produce a picture of the complex food aid system, highlighting the pathways and processes through which food food aid organisations help (or hinder) preventing food insecurity. 2: Over 12 months, researchers will work as volunteers at five food organisations to understand how they work and to meet users, volunteers and staff. After three months, researchers will carry out ‘go-along’ interviews with families, spending time with them to understand their lives and the role food aid organisations play. Researchers will also spend time with families who are food insecure but do not use food aid organisations to understand why, and how they manage. All families will take photos, videos and other media of things that are important to them about food. All the above will help us understand which food aid organisation approaches are most beneficial (how and in what ways) and how accessible and inclusive they are. 3: Throughout the project, we will consider how our findings are able to make the biggest difference; from ensuring our questions are relevant and needed, choosing our methods and sharing our results to change policy and practice. Public involvement: People receiving food aid and those working in local government, voluntary organisations and food aid organisations have all told us that this research is essential. We changed our original plans to make sure that researchers volunteered within food aid organisations to build trust with people using them. We will continue to work alongside food aid organisation users and our project team includes someone who has experienced food insecurity. Impact/dissemination: Part 3 of our methods (above) has been developed specifically to ensure that our research can make the biggest difference. We will provide regular updates and findings to everyone involved, including local and national government, voluntary organisations, communities and academics. These will be tailored to the audience and will highlight which food aid organisation approaches prevent the need for emergency food. We will also host public exhibitions of the photos/videos that families share with us.

We aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for systems-wide public health interventions seeking to promote early life health and wellbeing. Research was embedded within the existing systems-based intervention research programme ‘ActEarly’, located in two different areas with high rates of child poverty, Bradford (West Yorkshire) and the Borough of Tower Hamlets (London). 168 potential outcomes were derived from five local government outcome frameworks, a community-led survey and an ActEarly consortium workshop. Two rounds of a Delphi study (Round 1: 37 participants; Round 2: 56 participants) reduced the number of outcomes to 64. 199 members of the community then took part in consultations across ActEarly sites, resulting in a final COS for systems-based public health interventions of 40 outcomes. These were grouped into the domains of: Development & education (N = 6); Physical health & health behaviors (N = 6); Mental health (N = 5); Social environment (N = 4); Physical environment (N = 7); and Poverty & inequality (N = 7). This process has led to a COS with outcomes prioritized from the perspectives of local communities. It provides the means to increase standardization and guide the selection of outcome measures for systems-based evaluation of public health programmes and supports evaluation of individual interventions within system change approaches.