Search results

This research paper aims to delve into the perceptions of health susceptibility among Iranian, Afghan and Tajik individuals hailing from asylum-seeking or refused asylum-seeking backgrounds currently residing in Finland, Norway and Sweden.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and October 2022 involving a sample size of 27 participants. An adapted framework based on the health belief model along with previous studies served as a guide for formulating interview questions.

Notably influenced by cultural background, religious beliefs, psychological states and past traumatic experiences during migration journeys – before arrival in these countries till settling down – subjects’ perception of health concerns emerged significantly shaped. Additionally impacting perspectives were social standing, occupational status, personal/family medical history, lifestyle choices and dietary preferences nurtured over time, leading to varying degrees of influence upon individuals’ interpretation about their own wellness or illness.

Insights garnered throughout the authors’ analysis hold paramount significance when it comes to developing targeted strategies catering culturally sensitive health-care provisions, alongside framing policies better aligned with primary care services tailored explicitly around singular demands posed by these specific communities dwelling within respective territories.

This investigation represents one among few pioneering initiatives assessing perceptions regarding both physical and mental well-being within minority groups under examination across Nordic nations, unveiling complexities arising through intersecting factors like individual attributes mingling intricately with socio-cultural environments, thereby forming unique viewpoints towards health-care belief systems prevalent among such population segments.

High levels of child obesity alongside rising stunting and the absence of a coherent food policy have deemed UK’s food system to be broken. The National Food Strategy (NFS) was debated intensely in media, with discussions on how and who should fix the food system.

Using a mixed methods approach, the authors conduct framing analysis on traditional media and sentiment analysis of twitter reactions to the NFS to identify frames used to shape food system policy interventions.

The study finds evidence that the media coverage of the NFS often utilised the tropes of “culture wars” shaping the debate of who is responsible to fix the food system – the government, the public or the industry. NFS recommendations were portrayed as issues of free choice to shift the debate away from government action correcting for market failure. In contrast, the industry was showcased as equipped to intervene on its own accord. Dietary recommendations made by the NFS were depicted as hurting the poor, painting a picture of helplessness and loss of control, while their voices were omitted and not represented in traditional media.

British media’s alignment with free market economic thinking has implications for food systems reform, as it deters the government from acting and relies on the invisible hand of the market to fix the system. Media firms should move beyond tropes of culture wars to discuss interventions that reform the structural causes of the UK’s broken food systems.

As traditional media coverage struggles to capture the diversity of public perception; the authors supplement framing analysis with sentiment analysis of Twitter data. To the best of our knowledge, no such media (and social media) analysis of the NFS has been conducted. The paper is also original as it extends our understanding of how media alignment with free market economic thinking has implications for food systems reform, as it deters the government from acting and relies on the invisible hand of the market to fix the system.