There is a need for interventions that meet the needs of low socioeconomic status (SES) groups, to encourage the adoption of healthy diets and physical activity, in line with current public health guidance. This qualitative research used co-production, a method which actively involves the relevant community, to identify and describe public health interventions to support a group of mothers of young children living in a low SES area.
Methods:
A group of 20 mothers took part in three in-depth qualitative interviews to discuss in detail the type of support that would be of value to them for the adoption and maintenance of healthy behaviours. The mothers were subsequently invited to take part in a public engagement project, a community-based self-help group.
Results:
Four themes explained the principles of interventions that would be of value in supporting the mothers with the adoption of healthy behaviours, namely, a community-based self-help group, support for the whole family and support in the home and influencing the environment. These were then further developed into two types of intervention (1) learning for self-help and family care, which encompassed the first three learning-based themes and (2) community of support, which covered influencing the environment and the experience of the community-based self-help group.
Conclusion:
Co-production enabled a group of mothers of young children, from a low SES area, to describe the type of support that would help them with the establishment and maintenance of healthy lifestyle behaviours. A community-based self-help group warrants further research.
BartonMKearneyJStewart-KnoxBJ. Knowledge of food production methods informs attitudes toward food but not food choice in adults residing in socioeconomically deprived rural areas within the United Kingdom. J Nutr Educ Behav2011;43(5):374–8.
2.
BukmanAJTeuscherDFeskensEJM, et al. Perceptions on healthy eating, physical activity and lifestyle advice: opportunities for adapting lifestyle interventions to individuals with low socioeconomic status. BMC Public Health2014;14:1036.
3.
ClelandCLHunterRFTullyMA, et al. Identifying solutions to increase participation in physical activity interventions within a socio-economically disadvantaged community: a qualitative study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act2014;11:68.
4.
TeuscherDBukmanAJvan BaakM, et al. Challenges of a healthy lifestyle for socially disadvantaged people of Dutch, Moroccan and Turkish origin in the Netherlands: a focus group study. Crit Public Health2015;25:615–26.
5.
WittelsPKayTMansfieldL. Adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle in low SES families: How the experience of motherhood shapes responses to dietary and physical activity public health guidance. BMC Public Health2022;22:1092https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13502-4
McGillRAnwarEOrtonL, et al. Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact. BMC Public Health2015;15:457.
10.
MichieSAbrahamCWhittingtonC, et al. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol2009;28(6):690–701.
11.
WittelsPKayTMansfieldL. The family is my priority: How motherhood frames participation in physical activity in a group of mothers living in a low socioeconomic status area. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022;19:1071. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031071
12.
MichieSvan StralenMMWestR. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci2011;6:42.
13.
OgdenJ. Celebrating variability and a call to limit systematisation: the example of the behaviour change technique taxonomy and the behaviour change wheel. Health Psychol Rev2016;10(3):245–50.
14.
SniehottaFFPresseauJAraújo-SoaresV. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol Rev2014;8:1–7.
15.
VerschuereBBrandsenTPestoffV. Co-production: the state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas2012;23:1083–101.
16.
DonettoSPierriPTsianakasV, et al. Experience-based co-design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory design in the public sector. Des J2015;18(2):227–48.
17.
VoorbergWHBekkersVJJMTummersLG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Adm Rev2015;17:1333–57.
18.
MansfieldLKayTAnokyeN, et al. Community sport and the politics of aging: co-design and partnership approaches to understanding the embodied experiences of low-income older people. Front Sociol2019;4:5.
19.
O’CathainACrootLDuncanE, et al. Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open2019;9:e029954.
20.
MansfieldL. Resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity: the three Rs of partnership in sport for public health research. Int J Sport Policy Politics2017;8:4713–29.
21.
BarberRBeresfordPBooteJ, et al. Evaluating the impact of service user involvement on research: a prospective case study. Int J Consum Stud2011;35:609–15.
BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol2006;3:77–101.
24.
BraunVClarkeV. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health2019;11:589–97.
25.
MilesMBHubermanAM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
26.
PattonMQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
27.
StuifbergenAKMorrisMJungJH, et al. Benefits of wellness interventions for persons with chronic and disabling conditions: a review of the evidence. Disabil Health J2010;3(3):133–45.
28.
PennLDombrowskiSUSniehottaFF, et al. Perspectives of UK Pakistani women on their behaviour change to prevent type 2 diabetes: qualitative study using the theory domain framework. Br Med J2014;4:e004530.
29.
LuptonD. The imperative of health: public health and the regulated body (vol. 90). London: Sage; 1995.
30.
HawkesCSmithTGJewellJ, et al. Obesity 2: smart food policies for obesity prevention. Lancet2015;385(9985):2410–21.
31.
BlueSShoveECarmonaC, et al. Theories of practice and public health: understanding (un)healthy practices. Crit Public Health2016;26(1):36–50.
32.
BroederLDUitersEHoflandA, et al. Local professionals’ perceptions of health assets in a low-SES Dutch neighbourhood: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health2017;18(1):12.
33.
SpringettJOwensCCallaghanJ. The challenge of combining ‘lay’ knowledge with ‘evidence-based’ practice in health promotion: fag ends smoking cessation service. Crit Public Health2007;17(3):243–56.
34.
AttreePFrenchBMiltonB, et al. The experience of community engagement for individuals: a rapid review of evidence. Health Soc Care Community2011;19(3):250–60.
35.
SeguinRAFoltaSCSehlkeM, et al. The strongwomen change clubs: engaging residents to catalyze positive change in food and physical activity environments. J Environ Public Health2014;2014:162403.
36.
DergesJClowALynchR, et al. ‘Well London’ and the benefits of participation: results of a qualitative study nested in a cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open2014;4:e003596.
