Historically, approaches to the promotion of population health have been based on a deficit model. That is, they tend to focus on identifying the problems and needs of populations that require professional resources and high levels of dependence on hospital and welfare services. These deficit models are important and necessary to identify levels of needs and priorities. But they need to be complemented by some other perspectives as they have some drawbacks. Deficit models tend to define communities and individuals in negative terms, disregarding what is positive and works well in particular populations. In contrast 'assets' models tend to accentuate positive capability to identify problems and activate solutions. They focus on promoting salutogenic resources that promote the self esteem and coping abilities of individuals and communities, eventually leading to less dependency on professional services.Much of the evidence available to policy makers to inform decisions about the most effective approaches to promoting health and to tackling health inequities is based on a deficit model and this may disproportionately lead to policies and practices which disempower the populations and communities who are supposed to benefit from them. An assets approach to health and development embraces a 'salutogenic' notion of health creation and in doing so encourages the full participation of local communities in the health development process.The asset model presented here aims to revitalise how policy makers, researchers and practitioners think and act to promote a more resourceful approach to tackling health inequities. The model outlines a systematic approach to asset based public health which can provide scientific evidence and best practice on how to maximise the stock of key assets necessary for promoting health. Redressing the balance between the assets and deficit models for evidence based public health could help us to unlock some of the existing barriers to effective action on health inequities. This re-balancing would help in better understanding the factors that influence health and what can be done about them. It would promote a positive and inclusive approach to action. (Promotion & Education, 2007, Supplement (2): pp 17-22).

as part of broader social lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with the health and well-being of children and adolescents.OBJECTIVE To review published reports on the association of school closures during broader social lockdown with mental health, health behaviors, and well-being in children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 years, excluding associations with transmission of infection.EVIDENCE REVIEW Eleven databases were searched from inception to September 2020, and machine learning was applied for screening articles. A total of 16 817 records were screened, 151 were reviewed in full text, and 36 studies were included. Quality assessment was tailored to study type. A narrative synthesis of results was undertaken because data did not allow meta-analysis. FINDINGS A total of 36 studies from 11 countries were identified, involving a total of 79 781 children and adolescents and 18 028 parents, which occurred during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (February to July 2020). All evaluated school closure as part of broader social lockdown during the first COVID-19 wave, and the duration of school closure ranged from 1 week to 3 months. Of those, 9 (25%) were longitudinal pre-post studies, 5 (14%) were cohort, 21 (58%) were cross-sectional, and 1 (3%) was a modeling study. Thirteen studies (36%) were high quality, 17 (47%) were medium quality, and 6 (17%) were low quality. Twenty-three studies (64%) were published, 8 (22%) were online reports, and 5 (14%) were preprints. Twenty-five studies (69%) concerning mental health identified associations across emotional, behavioral, and restlessness/inattention problems; 18% to 60% of children and adolescents scored above risk thresholds for distress, particularly anxiety and depressive symptoms, and 2 studies reported no significant association with suicide. Three studies reported that child protection referrals were lower than expected number of referrals originating in schools. Three studies suggested higher screen time usage, 2 studies reported greater social media use, and 6 studies reported lower physical activity. Studies on sleep (10 studies) and diet (5 studies) provided inconclusive evidence on harms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this narrative synthesis of reports from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, studies of short-term school closures as part of social lockdown measures reported adverse mental health symptoms and health behaviors among children and adolescents. Associations between school closure and health outcomes and behaviors could not be separated from broader lockdown measures.

Objectives-To examine overweight prevalence and its association with demographic and lifestyle factors in 11-15 year olds in the HBSC 2005-2006 survey. Methods-Self-reports of height, weight, eating patterns, physical activity and sedentary behaviours were obtained from nationally representative samples in 41 countries (n=205,939).Results-Overweight prevalence was highest in USA (28.8%) and lowest in Latvia (7.6%). In most countries, overweight was more prevalent in boys than girls. Overweight was consistently negatively associated with breakfast consumption and moderate to vigorous physical activity; OR range: 0.48-0.79 and 0.50-0.78, respectively.Conclusion-Overweight prevalence in youth remained high across the countries examined. The primary factors linked to overweight were breakfast consumption and physical activity. These data should contribute to formulating preventive programs and policies.

No abstract

BackgroundMental health is an important component of overall health and wellbeing and crucial for a happy and meaningful life. The prevalence of mental health problems amongst children and adolescent is high; with estimates suggesting 10-20% suffer from mental health problems at any given time. These mental health problems include internalising (e.g. depression and social anxiety) and externalising behavioural problems (e.g. aggression and anti-social behaviour). Although social capital has been shown to be associated with mental health/behavioural problems in young people, attempts to consolidate the evidence in the form of a review have been limited. This integrative systematic review identified and synthesised international research findings on the role and impact of family and community social capital on mental health/behavioural problems in children and adolescents to provide a consolidated evidence base to inform future research and policy development.MethodsNine electronic databases were searched for relevant studies and this was followed by hand searching. Identified literature was screened using review-specific inclusion/exclusion criteria, the data were extracted from the included studies and study quality was assessed. Heterogeneity in study design and outcomes precluded meta-analysis/meta-synthesis, the results are therefore presented in narrative form.ResultsAfter screening, 55 studies were retained. The majority were cross-sectional surveys and were conducted in North America (n = 33); seven were conducted in the UK. Samples ranged in size from 29 to 98,340. The synthesised results demonstrate that family and community social capital are associated with mental health/behavioural problems in children and adolescents. Positive parent–child relations, extended family support, social support networks, religiosity, neighbourhood and school quality appear to be particularly important.ConclusionsTo date, this is the most comprehensive review of the evidence on the relationships that exist between social capital and mental health/behavioural problems in children and adolescents. It suggests that social capital generated and mobilised at the family and community level can influence mental health/problem behaviour outcomes in young people. In addition, it highlights key gaps in knowledge where future research could further illuminate the mechanisms through which social capital works to influence health and wellbeing and thus inform policy development.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2050-7283-2-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.