Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Correction
  • Open Access

Correction to: Tailoring lifestyle interventions to low socio-economic populations: a qualitative study

BMC Public Health201818:1147

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5979-3

  • Received: 4 August 2018
  • Accepted: 17 August 2018
  • Published:

The original article was published in BMC Public Health 2018 18:967

Correction to: BMC Public Health (2018) 18: 967. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5877-8

In the original publication of this article [1] there is an error in the citations of Tables 2 and 3. In this correction article the incorrect and correct citations are shown for clarity:

Incorrect:

Eight SUs had qualifications, with the highest being degree level (Table 1).

Another strength is that our study took place in a real world setting in a city which comprises of both deprived and affluent areas. Participants were from different teams and from a range of socio-economic areas across the city, which provided variability within the sample (see Table 3).

Both themes identified some ways in which lifestyle in terventions can be tailored to low SES populations in relation to facilitating delivery and supporting behavior change. A summary of these recommendations can be seen in Table 2.

Correct:

Eight SUs had qualifications, with the highest being degree level (Table 2).

Another strength is that our study took place in a real world setting in a city which comprises of both deprived and affluent areas. Participants were from different teams and from a range of socio-economic areas across the city, which provided variability within the sample (see Table 2).

Both themes identified some ways in which lifestyle interventions can be tailored to low SES populations in relation to facilitating delivery and supporting behaviour change. A summary of these recommendations can be seen in Table 3.

Tables 2 and 3 are also shown in the Correction article for reference. The original publication has been updated. The publisher apologizes to the authors and readers for the inconvenience.
Table 2

Service User characteristics

ID number

Age range

Occupation

Ethnicity

Highest qualifications

IMD decile1

SU1

75–79

Sales and customer service (Retired)

White British

None

9

SU2

45–49

Skilled Trades

White British

NVQ level 3

3

SU3

60–64

Administrative and Secretarial (Retired)

White British

NVQ level 2

3

SU4

65–69

Administrative and Secretarial (Retired)

White British

Vocational

9

SU5

70–74

Administrative and Secretarial (Retired)

White British

1 A level

1

SU6

80–84

Elementary (Retired)

White British

None

1

SU7

70–74

Elementary (Retired)

White British

None

3

SU8

65–69

Caring, leisure and other (Retired)

White British

Level 2 diploma

10

SU9

60–64

Unemployed (Employment Support allowance)

White British

None

2

SU10

70–74

Elementary (Retired)

White British

Degree

2

SU11

55–59

Caring, leisure and other

Asian British

Level 2

3

SU12

65–69

Elementary (Retired)

White British

Vocational

6

SU13

40–44

Unemployed (Employment Support allowance)

White British

None

1

SU14

65–69

Manager (Retired)

White British

None

1

Table 3

Challenges identified and suggested tailoring for lifestyle interventions for socio-economically deprived populations

 

Themes identified

Suggestions for tailoring (data)

Further suggestions for tailoring

Managing diversity

Meeting diverse needs

• Focus on education and no pressure to engage with tools for those with limited knowledge and difficult to engage.

• Separate groups for first time attendees with focus on education, and then on-going weigh-in and support groups for those who have previously attended.

Language and literacy barriers

• Visual aids e.g. fats, sugars and salt pots, traffic light card.

• More visually presented information rather than reliance on written materials.

Cultural diversity

• Target specific groups e.g. ethnicity, religion, to allow for tailoring of content and building relationships.

• More community development and linking with social housing.

• Ensure service deliverers are suitably trained to deliver culturally sensitive information.

Working against the environment

Affordability; attendance and adherence

• Use health professional referrals to add value to free course.

• Provide cost appropriate suggestions e.g. local deals, cheap recipes.

• Linking with leisure facilities for special offers.

• Additional commitment element to course.

• Considerations for policy level e.g. food vouchers.

Access and availability

• Recommend frozen and tinned fruit and vegetables.

• Suggest best options for fast food e.g. tomato rather than cream based curries.

• Signposting.

• Free leisure pass.

• Consideration for policy level e.g. planning.

• Include strategies for replacing fast food e.g. cooking own healthier versions.

• Interagency communication to identify gaps in provision.

Life gets in the way

• Planning meals.

• Damage limitation strategies e.g. knowing what not to eat at parties.

• Ensure easy to implement/ realistic goals.

• Strategies to encouraging partners and families to support/ adopt changes.

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
(2)
Centre for Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Reference

  1. Coupe N, Cotterill S, Peters S. Screening for chronic kidney disease of uncertain aetiology in Sri Lanka: usability of surrogate biomarkers over dipstick proteinuria. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:967. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5877-8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement