Somerset County Council

Tobacco consumption remains the single greatest preventable cause of death globally, claiming over eight million lives annually. Although global smoking prevalence has declined, relapse among ex-smokers persists, particularly during large societal disruptions such as pandemics, armed conflicts, and economic crises. This integrative review synthesizes empirical evidence and theoretical frameworks on the behavioural dynamics of smoking relapse during such disruptions. WHO technical guidance and MPOWER documentation were used for policy synthesis. Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, JSTOR, Google Scholar, Researchgate, and grey sources (2005–2025), focusing on relapse, initiation, cessation attempts, and service access under disruptive conditions. Drawing on Marlatt and Gordon’s Relapse Prevention Model, the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, Socio-ecological Model, and the Resource and Opportunity Cost Model, the study identifies multifactorial relapse drivers across individual, interpersonal, community, and structural levels. Evidence indicates heterogeneous outcomes: during COVID-19, anxiety triggered relapse for some, while health concerns motivated cessation in others. In conflicts, trauma, displacement, and weakened healthcare increased relapse, whereas economic crises produced stress-induced relapse. Factors associated with smoking relapse included psychological distress, unemployment, disrupted social networks, and tobacco industry opportunism. The resilience and support systems were integrated mental health and cessation services, community support, accessible pharmacotherapies, economic safety nets, and public health communication. Relapse during societal disruptions is shaped by intersecting psychological, social, and structural pressures, underscoring the need for multi-level interventions. Strengthening cessation infrastructure, embedding stress and trauma supports, and safeguarding equity in tobacco control policies are essential to mitigate relapse risk during future societal disruptions.

Food insecurity (FI) has increased in recent years due to economic shifts and rising food prices, with 13.6% of UK households experiencing FI, 47% including children in 2024. Following PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review with narrative synthesis explored the impact of UK interventions addressing FI for children, families, and pregnant women. Seven databases and two clinical trial registers were systematically searched for articles published between 2008-November 2023 (rapid search November 2023-February 2026). Peer-reviewed intervention studies were eligible if they were conducted in the UK, had an experimental design, targeted at least one FI pillar (accessibility, utilisation, availability, and stability) and if most participants were children aged 0-11 years, families with at least one child 0-11 years, or pregnant women. 18,225 articles were identified (rapid search identified 5,514); 11 intervention studies were included (rapid search n = 2). Types of interventions included cooking interventions (n = 4), free school meals (n = 3), holiday clubs (n = 2), supermarket vouchers (n = 1), and food bags (n = 1). Food availability was targeted in seven studies, food accessibility and utilisation in five, and food stability in one, one study included FI as an outcome. The interventions demonstrated barriers and facilitators to inform future intervention development. Most studies were considered serious or critical risk of bias. A lack of high-quality interventions addressing FI were identified. The additional studies reflected the evidence from the original studies. Government policies and funding are needed to relieve FI. Research needs to co-develop acceptable interventions and evaluate their effectiveness to reduce FI among families.

The UK's growing reliance on imports and rising climate risks highlight the need to expand protected horticulture as a secure, low‐carbon source of fruit and vegetables. A resilient system will require coordinated national planning, fair cost‐sharing across government and industry, and strong collaboration with growers. With a joined‐up strategy, modern greenhouses can greatly strengthen the UK's long‐term food security.

Background:The use of behavioural science and behaviour change within local authorities and public health has supported healthful change; as evidenced by its importance and contribution to reducing harm during the COVID-19 pandemic. It can provide valuable information to enable the creation of evidence-based intervention strategies, co-created with the people they are aimed at, in an effective and efficient manner.Aim:This study aimed to use the COM-B model to understand the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation of performing a constellation of eight COVID-19 disease prevention behaviours related to the slogans of 'Hands, Face, Space, Fresh Air'; 'Find, Isolate, Test, (FIT), and Vaccinate' in those employed in workplaces identified as high risk for transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) to support intervention development.Methods:This qualitative study recruited twenty-three participants (16 female, 7 male), who were interviewed from three environments (schools, care homes, warehouses) across three local authorities. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.Findings:Ten core themes were identified inductively; (1) knowledge and skills, (2) regulating the behaviour, (3) willingness to act, (4) necessity and concerns, (5) emotional impact, (6) conducive environment, (7) societal influence, (8) no longer united against COVID-19, (9) credible leadership, and (10) inconsistent adherence to COVID-19 prevention behaviours. Themes were then deductively mapped to the COM-B model of behaviour change and the theoretical domains framework and a logic model using the behaviour change wheel (BCW) was produced to inform intervention design.Conclusion:This study offers a novel approach to analysis that has included eight behaviours within a single thematic analysis and COM-B diagnosis. This will enable local authorities to direct limited resources to overarching priorities. Of key importance, was the need for supportive and credible leadership, alongside developing interventions collaboratively with the target audience. COVID-19 has had an emotional toll on those interviewed, however, promoting the value of disease prevention behaviours, over and above their costs, can facilitate behaviour. Developing knowledge and skills, through education, training, marketing and modelling can further facilitate behaviour. This supports guidance produced by the British Psychological Society COVID-19 behavioural science and disease prevention taskforce.

Abstract Background: The role of nutrient timing in energy intake amongst people with dysglycaemia is understudied but could be a simple method to help regulate appetite. This study analysed within-person associations of sugar intake at breakfast and subsequent energy intake. Methods: We used 4-day diet diary data from 147 participants (47 % men) encompassing 547 days of diet recording in the Sedentary Time and Metabolic Health in People with Type 2 diabetes project (STAMP-2). Linear two-level models were used to investigate within- (day-level) and between-person (participant-level) variation in total and post-breakfast energy intake according to skipping breakfast, low- (> 0-14.2 g) or high- (> 14.2 g) sugar intake at breakfast, adjusting for potential confounding or mediation. Results: Post-breakfast energy intakes were observed to be lower after eating low- and high-sugar breakfasts (compared to skipping), but higher total energy intake was associated with eating a high-sugar breakfast. Compared to breakfast skipping, both low- and high-sugar breakfasts were strongly associated with lower post-breakfast energy intake (-178, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -261, -94 kcal/d; ‑151, 95 % CI -235, -67 kcal/d, respectively). However, compared to skipping breakfast, low-sugar breakfasts were weakly associated with higher total daily energy intake (64, 95 % CI -18, 146 kcal/d), whereas high-sugar breakfasts had a strong association (135, 95 % CI 52, 217 kcal/d). Post-breakfast energy intakes were similar between low- and high-sugar breakfast days (27, 95 % CI -53, 106 kcal/d), whilst total daily energy intake tended to be higher with high- (compared to low-) sugar breakfasts (70, -8, 149 kcal/d). We also observed evidence of energy compensation whereby 86 % of the extra energy consumed in a low-sugar breakfast was compensated for by reductions in post-breakfast energy intakes, compared to only 53 % after a high-sugar breakfast. Conclusion: Overall, high-, but not low-, sugar breakfasts were associated with higher total daily energy intake when compared to breakfast skipping, despite a similar reduction in post-breakfast energy intake. We found evidence of poorer post-breakfast energy intake compensation with high-sugar breakfasts than low-sugar breakfasts. These findings suggest portion size may be important to consider in future breakfast research, with sugar being a proxy of portion size.