Modes of food production-consumption defined as 'alternative' have received considerable academic attention, with studies exploring both their potential for contributing to rural development strategies and the opportunities they provide for countering established power relations in food supply systems. However, the use of the term 'alternative' as part of a persistent dualism in which it is opposed to the 'conventional' is problematic as it loses sight of the specificity of different examples food production-consumption. Based on extensive field research with a series of very different food projects, this article develops a methodological framework which structures a description of how specific examples of food production-consumption are organised with reference to a series of analytical fields. This framework retains a sense of the diversity and particularity of particular cases of production-consumption, and directs attention to the particular locations of resistance to prevalent power relations in food systems that are made possible through different food projects.

No abstract

Recent European literature on 'alternative' food networks (AFNs) draws heavily upon an apparently accessible and diverse body of non-conventional food networks in the agrofood sector and whilst researchers frequently refer to individual examples of farmers markets, box schemes, producer cooperatives and community-supported agriculture projects, less attention is given to the methodological processes that facilitate the identification and examination of these networks. From the preliminary stages of a research project focusing on examples of AFNs,2 this paper examines the process of operationalizing AFNs research and reviews the difficulties associated with identifying, comparing and characterizing AFNs.

The WHO Child and Adolescent Mental Health Atlas, published in 2005, reported that child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) in Europe differed substantially in their architecture and functioning. We assessed the characteristics of national CAMHS across the European Union (EU), including legal aspects of adolescent care. Using an online mapping survey aimed at expert(s) in each country, we obtained data for all 28 countries in the EU. The characteristics and activities of CAMHS (ie, availability of services, inpatient beds, and clinicians and organisations, and delivery of specific CAMHS services and treatments) varied considerably between countries, as did funding sources and user access. Neurodevelopmental disorders were the most frequent diagnostic group (up to 81%) for people seen at CAMHS (data available from only 13 [46%] countries). 20 (70%) countries reported having an official national child and adolescent mental health policy, covering young people until their official age of transition to adulthood. The heterogeneity in resource allocation did not seem to match epidemiological burden. Substantial improvements in the planning, monitoring, and delivery of mental health services for children and adolescents are needed.

Transition-related discontinuity of care is a major socioeconomic and societal challenge for the EU. The current service configuration, with distinct Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) and Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS), is considered a weak link where the care pathway needs to be most robust. Our aim was to delineate transitional policies and care across Europe and to highlight current gaps in care provision at the service interface. An online mapping survey was conducted across all 28 European Countries using a bespoke instrument: The Standardized Assessment Tool for Mental Health Transition (SATMEHT). The survey was directed at expert(s) in each of the 28 EU countries. The response rate was 100%. Country experts commonly (12/28) reported that between 25 and 49% of CAMHS service users will need transitioning to AMHS. Estimates of the percentage of AMHS users aged under 30 years who had has previous contact with CAMHS were most commonly in the region 20-30% (33% on average).Written policies for managing the interface were available in only four countries and half (14/28) indicated that no transition support services were available. This is the first survey of CAMHS transitional policies and care carried out at a European level. Policymaking on transitional care clearly needs special attention and further elaboration. The Milestone Study on transition should provide much needed data on transition processes and outcomes that could form the basis for improving policy and practice in transitional care.