The socioeconomic context of stigma: examining the relationship between economic conditions and attitudes towards people with mental illness across European countries.

Introduction: Efforts to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness have intensified over the past 30 years with a particular focus on improving public attitudes. Difficult economic circumstances can be harmful to intergroup relations, but little is known about whether there is a relationship between socioeconomic conditions and attitudes towards people with mental illnesses. Methods: Random effects logistic regression modelling was employed to explore the relationship between individual financial circumstances, contextual socioeconomic factors and difficulty speaking to a person with a significant mental illness across European countries. Results: Lower GDP per capita and higher income inequality at the country level, alongside individual financial difficulties, were each associated with a greater likelihood of reporting difficulty speaking to a person with a significant mental illness. Discussion: Micro and macro-economic factors are associated with public attitudes towards people with mental illness across Europe. With prolonged economic instability predicted over the coming years in Europe it is important that these findings are taken into consideration when designing mental health and social policies, in order to safeguard the progress that has been made in reducing mental health stigma to date.

Changes in children's wellbeing in Bradford during COVID-19: The Born in Bradford COVID-19 longitudinal research study.

Background: Concerns have been raised about the potential impact of COVID-19 and associated lockdown measures on child mental wellbeing, but emerging evidence suggests mixed results and there is a dearth of information from ethnically diverse samples. The current study aims to explore the impact of the pandemic on wellbeing using longitudinal data collected from the multi-ethnic Born in Bradford family cohort study. Methods: Within-child changes in wellbeing were explored using data collected pre-pandemic and again during the first UK lockdown for 500 children aged 7-13 from a range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, using self-reported feelings of happiness and sadness. Associations between changes in wellbeing, demographic factors, quality of social relationships and physical activity levels were explored using multinomial logistic regression models. Results: In this sample, 55% of children reported no change in their wellbeing from pre-pandemic to during the first lockdown (n=264). Children of Pakistani heritage were more than twice as likely to report feeling sad less often than White British children (RRR: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.23, 5.51) during the first lockdown. Those who reported being left out by other children before the pandemic were over three times as likely than those who did not (RRR: 3.72: 1.51, 9.20) to report feeling sad less often during the pandemic. Around a third of children reported feeling happier (n=152, 31.6%), but these changes did not relate to any of the explanatory variables included in this analysis. Conclusion: Many children in this study reported no changes in their wellbeing during the first UK lockdown compared to before the pandemic and some described improved wellbeing. These findings suggest that children have coped well with the significant changes over the past year, though targeted support, particularly for those children who felt excluded before the pandemic, would be beneficial.

"The reality is that on Universal Credit I cannot provide the recommended amount of fresh fruit and vegetables per day for my children": Moving from a behavioural to a systemic understanding of food practices [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: Evidence suggests that people living in poverty often experience inadequate nutrition with short and long-term health consequences. Whilst the diets of low-income households have been subject to scrutiny, there is limited evidence in the UK on the diet quality and food practices of households reporting food insecurity and food bank use. We explore lived experiences of food insecurity and underlying drivers of diet quality among low-income families, drawing upon two years of participatory research with families of primary school age children. Methods: We report on a mixed-methods study of the relationship between low income, food bank use, food practices and consumption from a survey of 612 participants, including 136 free text responses and four focus groups with 22 participants. The research followed a parallel mixed-methods design: qualitative and quantitative data were collected separately, although both were informed by participatory work. Quantitative data were analysed using binary and multinomial logistic regression modelling; qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results: Lower income households and those living with food insecurity struggle to afford a level of fruit and vegetable consumption that approaches public health guidance for maintaining a healthy diet, despite high awareness of the constituents of a healthy diet. Participants used multiple strategies to ensure as much fruit, vegetable and protein consumption as possible within financial constraints. The quantitative data suggested a relationship between higher processed food consumption and having used a food bank, independent of income and food security status. Conclusions: The findings suggest that individualised, behavioural accounts of food practices on a low-income misrepresent the reality for people living with poverty. Behavioural or educational interventions are therefore likely to be less effective in tackling food insecurity and poor nutrition among people on a low income; policies focusing on structural drivers, including poverty and geographical access to food, are needed.

Discrediting experiences: outcomes of eligibility assessments for claimants with psychiatric compared with non-psychiatric conditions transferring to personal independence payments in England.

BACKGROUND: Recent qualitative research suggests that changes to the way eligibility for welfare payments is determined in the UK may be detrimental to claimants with mental illnesses. No large-scale analysis has been undertaken to date.AimsTo examine differences between claimants with psychiatric conditions compared with non-psychiatric conditions in the number of claims disallowed following a personal independence payment (PIP) eligibility assessment for existing disability living allowance (DLA) claimants. METHOD: Administrative data on DLA claimants with psychiatric conditions transferring to PIP between 2013 and 2016 was compared with claimants with non-psychiatric conditions to explore differences in the number of claims disallowed following an eligibility assessment. RESULTS: Claimants with a mental illness were 2.40 (95% CI 2.36-2.44) times more likely to have their existing DLA entitlement removed following a PIP eligibility assessment than claimants with musculoskeletal conditions, neurological conditions and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: PIP eligibility assessment outcomes show marked differences by health condition, raising questions as to whether the process is equitable.Declaration of interestNone.