Food deserts and deprivation: Experience from a Complications of Excess Weight Service in UK

Lee Shien Chen; Oyeniyi Juliana A; Theodora Papanikolaou; Sarah Say; Kiran Duggal; Tracie Davies; Safia Ravat; Natalie Jones; Suma Uday; Jan Idkowiak; Dias Renuka P

Introduction: West Midlands Complications of Excess Weight (CEW) service covers a large geographical area with high levels of ethnic diversity with over 40% of people living in the most deprived decile (Index of Multiple Deprivation -IMD). We aim to investigate markers of deprivation in our CEW cohort.

Methods: Retrospective review of patients seen in our CEW service between July 2021 and August 2023. Data was collected for ethnicity, additional learning needs, single parent’s household and BMI at presentation. Patients’ home postcodes were used to calculate IMD, food priority places and food desert proximity deciles. We then compared these 3 decile categories with our patients’ BMI SDS at presentation using ANOVA.

Results: Data was available for 79 patients (42 male, 37 female). Ethnic breakdown was 41.8% White (n = 33), 41.8% Non-White (n = 33; Asian n = 19, Black n = 6, Mixed n = 6, Other n = 2) and 16.4% not stated (n = 13). 59.5% were in the lowest deciles for IMD (1 and 2, n = 47) vs 2.5% in IMD least deprived deciles 9 and 10 (n = 2). 41% (n = 32) has additional learning needs in school with 16 children diagnosed with autism and 4 children with ADHD. 45% of our patients (n = 36) have reported behavioural issues around food. 29% (n = 23) of our patients were part of a single parent household. There was significant difference between ethnicity and IMD decile between white and non-white population (P = 0.02) but there were no significant differences in BMI SDS at presentation, food desert proximity decile or priority food decile between white and non-white patients. There was no difference in BMI SDS at presentation between most deprived decile (IMD decile 1) vs least deprived population (IMD decile 5-10). Considering other markers of economic vulnerability, there was no difference in BMI SDS at presentation and number of parents in household. However, there was a significant difference in IMD decile and food desert proximity decile vs number of parents in household groups (P <0.05).

Conclusion: A large cohort of our CEW patients live in the most deprived decile with a significant proportion from an ethnic background. Other measures of deprivation, specifically related to food security have shown that our patients have additional risk factors including high levels of single parent households (29% vs 6.8% regionally) and autism diagnosis (20% vs 1% nationally). These adds pressures to addressing healthcare inequalities in the UK and implementation of appropriate support to tackle childhood obesity.

ESPE Abstracts

P1-145