‘Health Chatter’: The Health Behaviour Research Centre Blog
  • Pages

  • Our Twitter Feed

  • A A A

    Congratulations to Dr Jo Waller

    By Alice Forster, on 7 November 2016

    Alice Forster and Laura Marlow

    Today at the NCRI Cancer Conference in Liverpool, the inaugural Jane Wardle prize was awarded to our very own Dr Jo Waller to recognise her world-leading contribution in cervical cancer prevention. The prize was set up by Cancer Research UK in memory of Professor Jane Wardle who died last year. Jo has been at the Health Behaviour Research Centre for 15 years and was herself mentored by Jane Wardle. In this blog we highlight some of Jo’s key research in cervical cancer prevention during this time.

     

    In 2005, Jo completed a PhD exploring psychosocial issues surrounding the viral aetiology of cervical cancer. These early studies explored the emotional and social consequences of a HPV diagnosis and how women make sense of a HPV positive result at cervical screening. The findings highlighted extremely low awareness of HPV and poor understanding about how cervical cancer develops. This work also showed the importance of providing good information to ensure minimal anxiety when receiving a HPV positive result at screening and to avoid stigmatising cervical cancer.

     

    Jo and her colleagues went on to explore psychosocial issues surrounding HPV vaccination before and after its introduction in 2008. This research helped identify the most appropriate age for the vaccine and contributed to the content of the information materials provided. In addition, this work offered reassurance that vaccination against a sexually transmitted infection (the HPV vaccine) did not result in changes to girls’ sexual behaviour as some media reports had suggested. Jo’s work has also explored why certain sub-groups of the population, such as young women and ethnic minority women are less likely to participate in cervical screening.

     

    In 2014, Jo was awarded a prestigious Cancer Research UK Career Development Fellowship to continue her research in cervical cancer prevention. Jo now formally manages a team of researchers and her current research activities include understanding non-participation in cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination, developing interventions to improve uptake of these cervical cancer control interventions, and evaluating the psychological impact of primary HPV testing within cervical screening.

     

    Jo has also been involved in numerous other bodies of work over the last 10 years including development of the Cancer Awareness Measure and studies exploring informed choice about screening. She is also an informal mentor to many students and colleagues. We are all very proud of Jo’s achievement today. Well done Jo!

     

    You can read more about our current work in cervical cancer prevention on our website.

    Weight discrimination is chronically stressful

    By Sarah Jackson, on 18 October 2016

    Stigmatisation of obesity remains one of “the last acceptable forms of prejudice”.  People with obesity are widely stereotyped as lazy, weak willed and personally to blame for their weight by the media, employers, educators, health care professionals, and even their friends and family.

    Facing discrimination can understandably be very stressful in the moment.  Small experiments have shown that asking people to watch a video that stigmatises obesity, or telling them that their body size and shape are unsuitable to take part in a group activity, increases levels of the stress hormone cortisol in their saliva.

    But what wasn’t known until now was whether discrimination has lasting effects on stress levels.  This is important because acute (short-term) stress is a protective, adaptive response whereas chronic stress can have a damaging effect on the body.

    In a new study published last week in Obesity we explored the relationship between weight discrimination and chronic stress.  The research involved 563 men and women with obesity (body mass index ≥30) aged 50 years and older taking part in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a large population-based cohort of middle-aged and older adults living in England.

    Rather than measuring levels of cortisol in saliva, which are sensitive to daily fluctuations and short-term factors such as diet, we analysed cortisol levels in hair.  Measuring hair cortisol is a new technique that gives an indication of average levels of cortisol in the body over several months.  Hair grows at approximately 1 cm per month, so the 1 cm of hair nearest to the scalp represents average exposure to cortisol over the last month.

    We found that one in eight people with obesity had experienced discrimination because of their weight, ranging from lack of respect or courtesy to being threatened or harassed.  Among people with severe obesity (BMI ≥40), one in three reported discrimination.

    Importantly, our findings revealed that average levels of cortisol in hair were 33% higher in individuals who had experienced weight discrimination than those who had not.  People who experienced more frequent weight discrimination had higher hair cortisol levels than those who faced less regular discrimination.

    The results of this study provide evidence that weight discrimination is associated with the experience of stress at a biological level.  Because experiencing high levels of cortisol over a prolonged period can have a substantial impact on health and wellbeing, it is likely that weight discrimination contributes to many of the negative psychological and biological consequences of obesity.  In addition, cortisol is known to increase appetite and fat storage, making people who experience weight discrimination more likely to gain weight.

     

    Article link:

    Jackson SE, Kirschbaum C, Steptoe A. Hair cortisol and adiposity in a population-based sample of 2,527 men and women aged 54-87 years. Obesity. First published ahead of print 14 October 2016. doi:10.1002/oby.21657

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21657/full

    Toddlers’ food fussiness is heavily influenced by genes

    By Andrea D Smith, on 14 October 2016

    Written by Andrea Smith, Alison Fildes and Clare Llewellyn

    In early childhood, children are gradually introduced to an increasingly varied diet. While some children happily accept new foods and enjoy eating lots of different kinds of foods, many are hesitant. Food avoidant behaviour can be broadly classified into two traits: ‘Food Fussiness’ and ‘Food Neophobia’. Food Fussiness is the tendency to be highly selective about the textures, taste and smell of foods you are willing to eat and is often seen as a consequence of inadequate parenting. However, Food Neophobia – the refusal to try new foods – is often seen as a normal development stage experienced by most young children regardless of the way their parents feed them. Fussy and neophobic eating behaviours typically emerge in toddlerhood and commonly peak between two and six years of age; but for some children these traits persist into later childhood.

    Food avoidant behaviour can be both frustrating and worrying for parents; children who eat only a restricted range of foods might miss out on key dietary nutrients essential for healthy development. In particular, fussy eaters tend to reject nutrient-dense foods such as vegetables. Early childhood is also an important period during which food preferences develop; learning to like a range of healthy foods requires the child to try a wide variety of different foods. Researchers have therefore been interested in finding out what shapes food avoidant behaviour in early life. Some research has suggested that children who are breastfed for longer and whose parents use less persuasive feeding practices (e.g. rewarding with food) are less likely to display fussy eating behaviours; suggesting that there are important environmental shapers of this behaviour. On the other hand, Food Neophobia is associated with temperamental traits such as shyness or inhibition; these characteristics have an established genetic influence, indicating that neophobia might also have a strong genetic basis.

    In a new study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry we used data from the Gemini twin cohort to investigate the extent to which genes and environmental factors influence children’s food fussiness and food neophobia. Gemini is a large study of 2400 pairs of twins that was set up in 2007 to explore early life growth and behaviour. Twin studies are useful for investigating the relative importance of genetic- and environmental factors on individual differences in traits such as food avoidant behaviours. The current study was based on data from 1,932 families collected when the twins where 16 months old.

    We found that both food fussiness and food neophobia have a strong genetic basis, with 46% and 58% of the variation in each trait explained by genetic influences respectively. The shared home environment (which includes factors such as parental feeding practices) was a more important influence on Food Fussiness than Food Neophobia; but overall, these environmental factors were less important than a child’s genetic predisposition towards these behaviours.

    The finding that there is substantial genetic influence on fussy eating behaviour in early childhood might be quite a relief for some parents who can often feel judged or guilty about their children’s fussy eating. Understanding that these traits are largely innate might help to deflect this blame.

    However, our genes are not our destiny. Establishing the importance of genetic influences on fussy eating behaviours in early childhood does not imply that these behaviours cannot be changed. An effective intervention to overcome food rejection is through repeated exposure to the problem food; the more a child tries a food, the more familiar it becomes and the more they learn to like it. In our group we have developed a tasting game called ‘Tiny Tastes’ to help families introduce foods to reluctant and fussy eaters. This is an avenue through which parents might be able to positively change fussy or neophobic eating behaviours.

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Food fussiness and food neophobia share a common etiology in early childhood

    Andrea D. Smith, Moritz Herle, Alison Fildes, Lucy Cooke, Silje Steinsbekk, and Clare H. Llewellyn

    Article link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.12647/epdf

    Fifty shades of cancer fear

    By Charlotte Vrinten, on 7 October 2016

    Are you afraid of cancer? Don’t worry, you’re in good company. Surveys show that many people in the UK are afraid of cancer [1]: 35% of people fear cancer more than other serious illnesses such as heart disease or HIV [2], and 20% fear cancer more than being in debt, being in a car accident, or losing a job. [3] But although we know that lots of people find cancer frightening, we don’t really know what it is about cancer that they are afraid of. So in our latest study, we aimed to explore just that.

    You may wonder why it is important to pinpoint what it is about cancer that worries people. The answer is that the nature of the fear may determine how people behave when it comes to cancer screening or responding to suspicious symptoms. For example, a study in the US found that worry about prostate cancer motivated men to have a prostate examination, while fear of the examination put them off. Intuitively, we know that there are many different aspects to cancer that could be frightening, but until now, no one had really explored this.

    In our study, which was published today, we collated findings from 102 interview studies from 26 countries to see what people in the general population(as opposed to cancer patients) said they feared about cancer [5]. All the studies combined included more than 3,500 participants.

    We found that those who are afraid of cancer seemed to view cancer as an indestructible enemy that randomly sneaks up on people to kill them – reprising the media’s ‘war on cancer’ theme. This rogue super soldier inspired lots of fear, which could be increased or decreased by factors such as family history of cancer, symptoms, or experiences of cancer in others, as well as coping styles such as ‘checking up on the enemy’ through cancer screening, or pretending that it doesn’t exist.

    In addition, we found that there are also specific aspects of cancer that inspire fear. Many participants were fearful of the emotional upset that a cancer diagnosis would cause. Fears of cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy and surgery, were also mentioned in many studies, in addition to the fear that surgery might cause cancer to spread (a fear that is completely unfounded). Some women expressed fears about losing intimate body parts and thereby their gender identity, for example if a breast needed to be removed to treat breast cancer.

    The social implications of being a cancer patient also inspired a lot of fear. Some people feared that a cancer diagnosis would stigmatise them, or would attract blame. Many people also worried that a cancer diagnosis would have a negative effect on their family, by burdening them financially, physically, or psychologically. Some women were worried that losing a breast would mean that their partners would no longer find them attractive and might abandon them.

    Finally, we found many references to fears about dying from cancer. Some said that they were so afraid of dying from cancer that they’d rather die without knowing that they had it.

    What can we conclude from these findings? We have shown for the first time that there are many different things that people in the general population – without a cancer diagnosis – worry about when it comes to cancer. What we do not yet know is how common these worries are, and how they may influence willingness to take steps to reduce cancer risk or get it detected early. These are questions that we will be investigating further. For example, we recently completed a national survey to find out how common various cancer worries are, the results of which will be presented at the upcoming NCRI conference. Watch this space!

    References

    [1] Vrinten C, van Jaarsveld CHM, Waller J, von Wagner C, Wardle J. (2014). The structure and demographic correlates of cancer fear. BMC Cancer, 14(1), 597.

    [2] http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2011-08-15-people-fear-cancer-more-than-other-serious-illness

    [3] http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2010-12-08-cancer-is-biggest-fear-but-34-per-cent-put-it-down-to-fate

    [4] Consedine NS, Adjei BA, Ramirez PM, McKiernan JM. (2008). An object lesson: source determines the relations that trait anxiety, prostate cancer worry, and screening fear hold with prostate screening frequency. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 17(7), 1631-1639.

    [5] Vrinten C, McGregor LM, Heinrich M, von Wagner C, Waller J, Wardle J, Black GB. (2016). What do people fear about cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of cancer fears in the general population.  Psychooncology, Epub 6 Oct 2016.

    What we know about parents’ decisions about vaccines: Reviewing the research

    By Lauren Rockliffe, on 30 August 2016

    Vaccines help prevent infectious diseases. It is important that most people get vaccines and if enough people are vaccinated, protection is also given to people who have not been vaccinated. This is known as herd immunity. Even though most children do get the vaccines they are offered, there are still some areas in the UK where there have been outbreaks of disease.

    In general, parents in the UK need to give permission for children under the age of sixteen to have a vaccination. Whilst many parents choose for their children to be vaccinated, some parents decide not to. It is important for us to understand why parents might decide not to vaccinate their children, so that we can address any issues that might be stopping parents from vaccinating. Only once we understand the reasons for non-vaccination can we start to think of ways to tackle them, to try and increase uptake of childhood vaccinations. The best way for us to find out what these issues might be is to review existing research in this field, much of which has been qualitative. Qualitative research aims to understand a topic by finding out people’s opinions, attitudes, motivations etc. This is often done by conducting interviews or focus groups.

    In our review, published this week, we aimed to do just this; to look at qualitative studies in the UK that had looked at vaccines for children, to try to understand what might influence parents’ decisions about vaccination. We reviewed a total of 34 studies. The results of each of these studies were then re-analysed to find common themes between them.

    We found that parents make decisions about vaccination in two different ways: some made decisions automatically, and others made more intentional decisions.

    Automatic decisions

    Automatic decisions are decisions that are made by parents without too much thought. When parents made these types of decisions they were often happy to go along with the advice about vaccination that was being given to them from health professionals. Parents also made automatic decisions when they did not feel like they had a choice and/or when they were copying the decisions other people had made about vaccinating their children. These types of decisions are often made quickly and parents did not appear to weigh up the pros and cons of vaccination when making them.

    Intentional decisions

    Intentional decisions are decisions that parents have taken more time to think about. When parents made these types of decisions they often weighed up what they perceived to be the risks and benefits of vaccinating and often judged how appropriate it was to vaccinate their child based on other people’s advice or experiences. Many parents making intentional decisions felt responsible and/or were worried about being judged by other parents for the decision they were making. Parents’ emotions had an effect when making intentional decisions, as did the media and what was being reported about vaccination.

    Additional factors

    The media affected the trust that parents had in information they received about vaccination, and in medical professionals, the government and the NHS. Trust (or a lack of trust) was important for parents when making both automatic and intentional decisions. Practical issues, for example travelling to the vaccination clinic, having a lack of time or being unable to get an appointment, also affected the decisions of parents who had decided to vaccinate, regardless of whether they had made an automatic or intentional decision.

    What does this tell us?

    Many parents who made automatic decisions had decided to vaccinate their child. However, some of these parents had decided to vaccinate because they felt pressured to do so. Other parents had copied other people and not vaccinated their child. Some parents who made intentional decisions had involved others in their decision-making, by speaking to family members, friends or work colleagues.

    The findings of this review highlight how important social factors are for parents when making decisions about vaccinating their child. The impact of one child not having a vaccination may go beyond just that child being unprotected, as that decision may influence other parents’ decisions. By understanding more about the decisions parents make about vaccinating their children we will be in a better position to start to think of things we can do to encourage more parents to give permission for their children to have childhood vaccinations.

    The importance of vaccination for everyone

    By Alice Forster, on 19 August 2016

    It’s important that most people get vaccines

    Most people get the vaccines offered to them as part of the NHS immunisation programme. They help prevent, and reduce the spread of diseases. Because of vaccines we no longer have smallpox anywhere in the world and polio is almost wiped out too.

    For some vaccines, fewer people from some ethnic minority backgrounds get them compared to everyone else in the UK. For example, children from Nigerian, White Polish or Somali backgrounds are less likely than other groups to be vaccinated against Diphtheria in London (1). For other vaccines, more people from some ethnic minority backgrounds get them compared to everyone else. For example, one study found that children from Black and Asian backgrounds living in the London borough of Brent had higher uptake of the first dose of the MMR vaccine than children from White backgrounds (2).

    Because of the way vaccination works, it’s really important that most people get the vaccines they are offered. If enough people get vaccines, protection is given to the people who cannot get them for medical reasons or are too young. So although the vast majority of people get vaccines, it’s still useful to understand why some people do not, so we can work out how we might be able to increase the number of people who get them. Because of the differences in who is and is not getting vaccines, we decided to explore what it was that might make children from ethnic minority backgrounds more or less likely to get vaccines.

    What did we do?

    In our new review, we looked at published studies where parents from ethnic minority backgrounds have been spoken to about why they had or had not chosen to vaccinate their children. We just looked a studies that had used qualitative methods, like interviewing parents and speaking to small groups of parents all at once (called focus groups). We used a technique called Thematic Synthesis to bring all of the findings together, which involves a number of researchers labelling the things that people had said and finding common themes within these labels.

    What did we find?

    Not surprisingly we found that most of the things that had convinced parents from ethnic minority backgrounds to get vaccines for their children, or had stopped them from doing so, were the same as the things that parents in general tell us. For example, parents had said that they were happy to go along with the doctor’s recommendation; that their decision had been influenced by other people and had found that things like transport problems had stopped them getting vaccines.

    But there were also some things that had affected parents’ decisions about vaccines that were linked to ethnicity. For some parents, their religion instructed them about whether vaccines were needed for their children. Other parents were influenced by their experiences of having lived in other countries. For some, this made them appreciate the healthcare that is offered in the UK, but others felt that particular vaccines were not needed because they were not offered to them back home. Scare stories in newspapers or on the television can sometimes cause parents to worry about vaccines. We found that some parents who did not speak English had not heard these stories and so did not have the worries that other parents might. Some parents had wanted information about vaccines to be given to them in the language they speak at home. Finally, vaccines go through many years of testing and are studied in groups of people from all different ethnic backgrounds. Some parents said that they wanted to know about this testing, so that they could be reassured that their children would react to the vaccines in the same way as other children.

    We now have a better understanding of why some people do and do not get vaccines

    This research has helped us to understand why children from some ethnic minority backgrounds might be more likely to get some vaccines. It also told us the type of information that parents from ethnic minority backgrounds want to know about vaccines to be confident that giving their child a vaccine is the right thing. In some situations it might be a good idea to tailor information about vaccines to parents from particular ethnic minority backgrounds to make sure they are getting all the information they want to have.

     

    References

    1. Wagner KS, van Wijgerden JCJ, Andrews N, Goulden K, White JM: Childhood vaccination coverage by ethnicity within London between 2006/2007 and 2010/2011. Arch Dis Child 2014, 99(4):348-353. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304388
    2. Mixer RE, Jamrozik K, Newsom D: Ethnicity as a correlate of the uptake of the first dose of mumps, measles and rubella vaccine. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007, 61(9):797-801. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2005.045633

    Cancer survivors are more dissatisfied with their sex lives – despite normal levels of sexual activity and function for their age

    By Sarah Jackson, on 17 August 2016

    Cancer survivorship rates are improving dramatically, with half of all people diagnosed with cancer in the UK now expected to survive for at least ten years. Although treatment of the cancer is the primary clinical goal, ensuring the best possible quality of life after treatment is important. Preservation of sexual function is a key component of quality of life, yet remains a commonly reported ‘unmet need’ by cancer survivors. However, sexual function declines with ageing and because the majority of cancers are diagnosed in the over-70s, it was previously unclear whether changes in sexual wellbeing reported by cancer survivors are a result of their disease or a natural by-product of ageing.

    In a new study published today in Cancer we explored differences in sexual activity, function and concerns between cancer survivors and people who had never received a cancer diagnosis. The findings revealed that a diagnosis of cancer does not seem to affect whether or not people have sex, how often they have sex, what they do when they have sex, and (in the case of men) their sexual function.  Compared with women of a similar age, women who had been diagnosed with cancer within the past five years were just as likely to be sexually active, although they were more likely to report problems with arousal.  Following the five years post-diagnosis the only difference was greater dissatisfaction with their sex lives, with 18% of women with a history of cancer reporting dissatisfaction compared to 12% of cancer-free women.  Male cancer survivors did not report any more sexual problems than their age-matched counterparts, but they were more dissatisfied with their sex lives (31% of men with cancer compared to 20% of men with no history of cancer).

    The research involved 2982 men and 3708 women aged 50 years and older taking part in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a large population-based cohort of middle-aged and older adults living in England.  Participants reported whether they had ever been diagnosed with cancer, and completed the Sexual Relationships and Activities Questionnaire, a comprehensive measure that includes questions on the frequency of sexual behaviours, problems with sexual activities and function, and concerns and worries about sexual activities, function and relationships.  It is the first study to compare sexual behaviour and concerns between cancer survivors and controls from the same population-based study using a standardised measure.

    The results of this study are generally encouraging in showing that older people with cancer do not experience greater problems with sexual activity or functioning than people of the same age without a history of cancer.  However, with more than one in five men and one in nine women reporting that they were dissatisfied with their sex lives, it is clear that there is a need to identify interventions to enhance sexual health in ageing men and women.  In the meantime, better advice on the normal changes in sexual activity and functioning that occur with ageing could help to address the mismatch between the normal sexual behaviour and lower sexual satisfaction seen in cancer survivors.

     

    Article link:

    Jackson SE, Wardle J, Steptoe A, Fisher A. Sexuality after a cancer diagnosis: a population-based study. Cancer. First published ahead of print 17 August 2016. doi:10.1002/cncr.30263

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.30263/full

    New evidence supports the use of twin studies to explore the effects of nature and nurture on human behaviours in childhood

    By Moritz P Herle, on 5 August 2016

    Written by Moritz Herle, Alison Fildes and Clare Llewellyn

    Over the past century twin studies have been used to explore how nature and nurture influence individual differences in human characteristics (such as personality, intelligence or height). Identical twins share the same genes, while non-identical twins share about half of the same genes; but both types of twins grow up in the same family environment. This means that researchers can compare similarities between identical twins, and similarities between non-identical twins, to get an idea about how much differences between people in characteristics such as height are caused by nature (genes), and nurture (the environment).

    The Health Behaviour Research Centre set up the Gemini twin cohort in 2007.  Gemini is a landmark study of early life growth and behaviour which has been following 2400 British families with twins born in 2007.  Gemini was established to help understand how genes (nature) and the environment (nurture) influence the development of eating behaviours, food preferences and growth in early childhood. Previous studies conducted by the Gemini team have suggested that individual differences in eating behaviours during childhood are strongly influenced by genes.

    Like much research into early child development, these studies have had to rely on parents’ ratings of their children’s eating behaviour. This is because large sample sizes make it difficult to measure behaviours in a laboratory and because young children are unable to report accurately on their own characteristics. Parents of Gemini twins provided information about their children’s behaviour using a widely-used questionnaire called the Child Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (CEBQ).  However, a criticism of twin studies is that parents might be biased by their beliefs about their twins’ zygosity (whether they are identical or non-identical) when rating each of their eating behaviours. For example, parents of identical twins might rate them more similarly simply because they think of them as ‘two peas in a pod’, while parents of non-identical twins might exaggerate the differences between them. Because twin studies are based on the comparison of similarity between identical and non-identical twin pairs, reliable and unbiased parental ratings are crucial.

    We recently published a new study that set out to test if parents are biased by their twins’ zygosity when they rate their eating behaviours. Using the Gemini sample we compared eating behaviour ratings from parents who held a false belief about their twins’ zygosity (i.e. they believed them to be non-identical, when they were in fact identical) to those from parents who held an accurate belief. The only way to conclusively know whether a twin pair is identical is to conduct a genetic test, which compares the DNA of the two siblings. However these genetic tests are not routinely carried out and parents can sometimes be misinformed about their twins’ zygosity. A more thorough account of why these misunderstandings occur has been discussed in a previous study.

    We established whether the Gemini twins were identical or non-identical using a combination of DNA testing and a questionnaire that accurately measures twin similarity. We also asked parents about whether they thought their twins’ were identical or not. Using this information we were able to identify parents who held a false belief about their twins’ zygosity, and those who were right. We found that approximately one third of parents of identical twins falsely believed them to be non-identical when they were about eight months old.

    In order to test if parents’ ratings of their twins’ behaviours are biased by their beliefs about their zygosity, we compared the ratings of parents with false and accurate beliefs about their twins’ zygosity, on a range of eating behaviours during infancy and toddlerhood. If parent ratings were biased then we would expect identical twins whose parents believed them to be non-identical to be rated as less similar than identical twin pairs correctly identified by their parents as identical.

    Interestingly, parents’ reports of their identical twins’ eating behaviours were the same, regardless of whether they had false or accurate beliefs about their twins’ zygosity. In other words, parents rated identical twins as more similarly than non-identical twins on all eating behaviours (in both infancy and toddlerhood), regardless of whether they believed them to be identical or non-identical. This indicates that parents of twins can be relied upon to provide unbiased reports of their young children’s eating behaviour, and that findings from twin studies can be trusted.

     

     

    Article link:

    Herle, M., Fildes, A., van Jaarsveld, C., Rijsdijk, F. & Llewellyn, C. H. (2016). Parental Reports of Infant and Child Eating Behaviors are not Affected by Their Beliefs About Their Twins’ Zygosity. Behavior Genetics. doi: 10.1007/s10519-016-9798-y

    Family upbringing has no impact on adolescents’ food preferences

    By Alison Fildes, on 11 July 2016

    Written by Andrea Smith, Alison Fildes and Clare Llewellyn

    Understanding the factors behind food likes and dislikes has important implications for politicians and clinicians. Our food preferences strongly influence what we chose to eat, affecting our health in the short- and long-term. Previous studies carried out by our group have shown that aspects of the shared family environment played an important role in shaping young children’s food preferences.  However, the relative influences of genes and the environment on older teenagers’ preferences was previously unknown.

    In a new study published this week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition we explored the relative importance of genetic and environmental influences on adolescents’ food preferences using a twin design. The findings revealed that the effects of family upbringing on teenagers’ food preferences seem to disappear as they start to make their own meal choices, to the point where they have no detectable impact by late adolescence. Instead the ‘unique environment’ – aspects of the environment that are not shared by both twins in a pair (e.g. experiences  unique to each twin, such as having different friends) were found to effect food likes and dislikes at this age. Genes were also found to have a moderate impact on food preferences in late adolescence, in keeping with earlier findings from young children.

    The research involved 2,865 twins aged 18-19 years from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), a large population based cohort of British twins born in 1994 to 1996. Food preferences were measured using a self-report questionnaire of 62 individual foods which were categorised into six food groups – fruits, vegetables, meat/fish, dairy, starch food and snacks. It is the first study to show how substantial influences of the shared family environment in early childhood are replaced by environmental influences unique to each individual by the time they enter young adulthood. The decreasing influence of the family environment in adolescence has also been observed for other traits, such as body weight.

    The results of this study mean that efforts to improve adolescent nutrition may be best targeted at the wider environment rather than the home, with strategies focused on increasing the availability and lowering the cost of ‘healthier foods’. The substantial influence of the non-shared environment, suggests that food preferences can be successfully shifted towards more healthy choices in late adolescence. Policies that make the healthier food choice, the easier choice for everyone, have potential to achieve substantial public health improvements. In particular, the UK sugar-sweetened beverage levy soon to be introduced is one initiative that has the potential to promote a healthy food and drink environment.

     

    Article link:

    Smith AD, Fildes A, Cooke L, Herle M, Shakeshaft N, Plomin R, and Llewellyn C. Genetic and environmental influences on food preferences in adolescence. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. First published ahead of print July 6, 2016. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.133983

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/07/05/ajcn.116.133983.full.pdf+html

    Measuring appetitive traits in adults. What do we know about their relationships to weight.

    By Claudia M E Hunot, on 6 July 2016

    By Claudia Hunot, Alison Fildes and Rebecca Beeken.
    Some people are more likely to put on weight than others, and may find it harder to lose weight. One of the ways in which people differ is in how they respond to food; their ‘appetitive traits’. For example, how full you tend to feel after a meal, how much you want to eat when you see or smell delicious foods, or how fast you eat. These traits are partly influenced by genes, and they explain individual differences in the way we all eat. In the present-day food-filled environment people who are more responsive to food cues (want to eat when they see or smell delicious food), and less sensitive to satiety (take longer to feel full) are more susceptible to over-eat and gain weight.

    For a number of years, appetitive traits have been measured in children using the ‘Child Eating Behaviour Questionnaire’ (CEBQ) and more recently in infancy using the ‘Baby Eating Behaviour Questionnaire’ (BEBQ). These questionnaires measure a number of appetitive traits that can be grouped into two broad categories: food approach and food avoidance traits. Food approach traits, such as ‘food responsiveness’, are associated with a larger appetite or greater interest in food, while food avoidance traits such as ‘satiety responsiveness’ are associated with a smaller appetite and/or a lower interest in food. Research has shown higher scores on food approach traits and lower scores on food avoidance traits are associated with increased weight and weight gain. However, so far most of this research has been carried out in children. Until now no matched questionnaire existed for measuring the same appetitive traits in adults.

    Therefore, in our latest study we developed the ‘Adult Eating Behaviour Questionnaire’ (AEBQ) to measure these appetitive traits in adults. We also wanted to explore whether these traits relate to adult weight, as they do in children. Adult samples were recruited at two time points, one-year apart, from an on-line survey panel. Participants completed the AEBQ and provided their weight and height measurements to calculate BMI. Data from a total of 1662 adults was analysed and showed the 35 item AEBQ to be a reliable questionnaire measuring 8 appetitive traits similar to the CEBQ.

    We also showed that food approach traits such as ‘food responsiveness’, ‘emotional over-eating’ and ‘enjoyment of food’ were positively associated with BMI. This means people with higher scores for these traits were heavier on average. While food avoidance traits including ‘satiety responsiveness’, ‘emotional under-eating’ and ‘slowness in eating’ were negatively associated with BMI. This means people with higher scores for these traits were lighter on average.

    These findings suggest appetitive traits are likely to be important for weight across the life course. The newly developed AEBQ is a reliable instrument, which together with the BEBQ and the CEBQ, could be used to track weight-related appetitive traits from infancy into adulthood. The AEBQ may also help to identify individuals at risk of weight gain and could inform targeted interventions tailored to help people manage their appetitive traits, and in turn control their weight.

    Article link:
    Hunot, C., Fildes, A., Croker, H., Llewellyn, C. H., Wardle, J., & Beeken, R. J. (2016). Appetitive traits and relationships with BMI in adults: Development of the Adult Eating Behaviour Questionnaire. Appetite. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.024
    You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are posted.
    Best regards,
    rmjlhun
    c.hunot.12@ucl.ac.uk