ObjectiveTo examine patterns of energy drink consumption by children and young people, attitudes towards these drinks, and any associations with health or other outcomes.DesignRapid evidence assessment and narrative synthesis.Data sources9 electronic bibliographic databases, reference lists of relevant studies and searches of the internet.ResultsA total of 410 studies were located, with 46 meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority employed a cross-sectional design, involved participants aged 11–18 years, and were conducted in North America or Europe. Consumption of energy drinks by children and young people was found to be patterned by gender, with boys consuming more than girls, and also by activity levels, with the highest consumption observed in the most and least sedentary individuals. Several studies identified a strong, positive association between the use of energy drinks and higher odds of health-damaging behaviours, as well as physical health symptoms such as headaches, stomach aches, hyperactivity and insomnia. There was some evidence of a dose–response effect. 2 experimental studies involving small numbers of junior athletes demonstrated a positive impact on limited aspects of sports performance. 3 themes emerged from the qualitative studies: reasons for use; influences on use; and perceived efficacy and impact. Taste and energy-seeking were identified as key drivers, and branding and marketing were highlighted as major influences on young people's consumption choices. Awareness of possible negative effects was low.ConclusionsThere is growing evidence that consumption of energy drinks is associated with a range of adverse outcomes and risk behaviours in terms of children's health and well-being. However, taste, brand loyalty and perceived positive effects combine to ensure their popularity with young consumers. More research is needed to explore the short-term and long-term impacts in all spheres, including health, behaviour and education.Trial registration numberCRD42014010192.

BackgroundConsumption of soft drinks is declining in many countries, yet energy drink sales continue to increase, particularly amongst young consumers. Little is currently known about the drivers behind these trends. Energy drinks are high in sugar and caffeine, and evidence indicates that regular or heavy use by under 18s is likely to be detrimental to health. This study aimed to explore children and young people’s attitudes and perceptions in relation to energy drinks in a UK context.MethodsEight focus groups were conducted with pupils aged 10–11 years (n = 20) and 13–14 years (n = 17) from four schools in northern England. A sub-sample also took part in a mapping exercise to generate further insights. Data were analysed using the constant comparative approach.ResultsEnergy drinks were reportedly consumed in a variety of public and private places, generally linked to social activities, sports and computer gaming (particularly amongst boys). Participants demonstrated strong brand awareness and preferences that were linked to taste and perceived value for money. The relatively low price of energy drinks and their widespread availability were identified as key factors, along with gendered branding and marketing. Some participants demonstrated a critical approach to manufacturers’ claims and many were keen to become better informed, often through school- or peer-based interventions. Other potential interventions included age restrictions, voluntary schemes involving retailers and improved labelling.ConclusionsThe lack of a single dominant factor in participants’ consumption choices suggests that there is unlikely to be a ‘silver bullet’ in attempting to address this issue. However, the findings provide support for policy-level interventions that seek to change the behaviours of manufacturers and retailers as well as consumers, and actively involve children and young people where possible.

This article examines the development of the ‘troubled families’ narrative that emerged following the riots in England in 2011, drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant. Their work is briefly discussed before the current concern about ‘troubled families’ is located in its wider historical and political context. The response to the riots and the emergence and development of the official concept of ‘troubled families’ is then examined. It is argued that the establishment and subsequent expansion of the Troubled Families programme was part of a wider process of neoliberal state-crafting that was undertaken by the coalition government, and which is likely to be continued under the new Conservative administration in the United Kingdom (UK). The article pays particular attention to the centrality of ‘the family’ in this neoliberal restructuring and adds to the emerging literature on neoliberal forms of governing families in the UK at the current time.

No abstract

This chapter examines the ways in which the Troubled Families Programme has been positioned by central government and by local authorities and practitioners. The reality of the programme is rather different from the runaway success story presented by government, positive outcomes often owing much to local officers’ negotiation and subversion of the programme. Discretion built into the programme has allowed subversion and resistance to occur, these transgressions occur under the radar and do little to trouble the national narrative of an assertive central government policy working successfully with troublesome families. This is significant, as the programme is considered by the Conservatives as a key example of how a smaller, smarter state might function.

The commitment of the appointed Director General of the Troubled Families Unit, Louise Casey, that the Troubled Families Programme (TFP) was ‘an opportunity not to repeat the failed attempts of the past’ masks several enduring continuities (Casey, 2012: 3). This review article argues that the TFP should be seen as part of a wider spectrum of policies which locates ‘troubles’ or ‘problems’ in the family itself and emphasises behaviour as the target of action without regard to wider social or economic considerations. This policy process must be understood within a wider context of not only historical efforts ‘to constrain the redistributive potential of state welfare’ (Macnicol, 1987: 316) but also of contemporary forms of neoliberal governance of ‘the family’ (Butler, 2014; Crossley, 2016a; Gillies, 2014).

The reciprocal nature of the relationship between the concepts of responsibilisation and resilience appears, in policy and political circles at least, almost natural. Whilst both concepts have been subjected to sustained academic critique for their presentation as largely individual or familial qualities, and their negation of social and structural pressures, there has been more limited attention paid to the potential of the concepts if they were put to work in a different way. This article attempts to sketch out ways in which the fundamentally relational aspects of the concepts of responsibility and resilience can be brought to the fore. In doing so, it builds on Rose and Lentzos’s argument that we should perhaps ‘argue not against responsibility and resilience but on the territory of responsibilities and resiliencies’ and sets out the case for engaging with, rather than withdrawing from or resisting discussions of the meanings and uses of these concepts, in tandem. Extending the work of Bourdieu and Wacquant, it argues for the need to turn the lens on the structures and mechanisms of power which promote and maintain inequality and divisive complex social relations, which undermine the possibility of collective ‘resilience’. The article advocates our collective ‘responsibility’ as engaging in processes that challenge and redefine these practices and structures to enable resistance and progressive action.

No abstract