This Position Paper from the Academy of Nutrition Sciences is the third in a series which describe the nature of the scientific evidence and frameworks that underpin nutrition recommendations for health. This paper focuses on evidence which guides the application of dietary recommendations for individuals. In some situations, modified nutrient intake becomes essential to prevent deficiency, optimise development and health, or manage symptoms and disease progression. Disease and its treatment can also affect taste, appetite and ability to access and prepare foods, with associated financial impacts. Therefore, the practice of nutrition and dietetics must integrate and apply the sciences of food, nutrition, biology, physiology, behaviour, management, communication and society to achieve and maintain human health. Thus, there is huge complexity in delivering evidence-based nutrition interventions to individuals. This paper examines available frameworks for appraising the quality and certainty of nutrition research evidence, the development nutrition practice guidelines to support evidence implementation in practice and the influence of other sources of nutrition information and misinformation. The paper also considers major challenges in applying research evidence to an individual and suggests consensus recommendations to begin to address these challenges in the future. Our recommendations target three groups; those who deliver nutrition interventions to individuals, those funding, commissioning or undertaking research aimed at delivering evidence-based nutrition practice, and those disseminating nutritional information to individuals.

The regulation of health claims for foods by the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation is intended, primarily, to protect consumers from unscrupulous claims by ensuring claims are accurate and substantiated with high quality scientific evidence. In this position paper, the Academy of Nutrition Sciences uniquely recognises the strengths of the transparent, rigorous scientific assessment by independent scientists of the evidence underpinning claims in Europe, an approach now independently adopted in UK. Further strengths are the separation of risk assessment from risk management, and the extensive guidance for those submitting claims. Nevertheless, four main challenges in assessing the scientific evidence and context remain: (i) defining a healthy population, (ii) undertaking efficacy trials for foods, (iii) developing clearly defined biomarkers for some trial outcomes and (iv) ensuring the composition of a food bearing a health claim is consistent with generally accepted nutrition principles. Although the Regulation aims to protect the consumer from harm, we identify some challenges from consumer research: (i) making the wording of some health claims more easily understood and (ii) understanding the implications of the misperceptions around products bearing nutrition or health claims. Recommendations are made to overcome these challenges. Further, the Academy recommends that a dialogue is developed with the relevant national bodies about Article 12(c) in the Regulation. This should further clarify the GB Guidance to avoid the current non-level playing field between health professionals and untrained ‘influencers’ who are not covered by this Article about the communication of authorised claims within commercial communications.

On average, 49–63% of people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are prescribed psychotropic medications to treat psychopathology, including psychiatric illness, behaviours that challenge and the core symptoms and associated behaviours of these developmental disorders. In many cases, psychotropics, particularly antipsychotics, are used off-label without a proper indication, particularly to manage behaviours that challenge. The RCTs show moderate evidence supporting the efficacy of low-dose risperidone and some preliminary evidence for aripiprazole in treating behaviours that challenge among children with ASD and/or intellectual disabilities. The RCT-based evidence for the other psychotropics is equivocal, so no definitive conclusions can be made on their efficacy. Polypharmacy and the use of high doses of antipsychotics are prevalent in this population, leading to the risk of adverse events and drug–drug interactions. Despite various national and international guidelines, and government initiatives encouraging reduced psychotropic use, there is little evidence of this happening; on the contrary, the use of antidepressants, mood stabilisers and benzodiazepines may be increasing. A concerted multi-agency effort is urgently needed to address this significant public health concern of the overmedication of people with intellectual disabilities and/or ASD.

Yoga was developed primarily as a tool for self-mastery and spiritual progress. However, over the past few decades, the therapeutic applications of yoga in mental healthcare have been explored with promising results. This article aims to inform psychiatrists about the clinical usefulness of yoga for mental disorders. We discuss the rationale and latest evidence base for the use of yoga in psychiatric practice, including the neurobiological mechanisms and indications and contraindications for yoga therapy. We suggest practical yoga techniques that can be used as an add-on for managing common psychiatric conditions. Finally, we discuss the setting up and running of yoga clinical services in a tertiary psychiatric hospital in India and explore what can be learnt to facilitate yoga as a therapeutic approach in the Western world.

The lack of frequent real-world opportunities to study preparedness for large-scale public health emergencies has hindered the development of an evidence base to support best practices, performance measures, standards, and other tools needed to assess and improve the nation’s multibillion dollar investment in public health preparedness. In this article, we argue that initial funding priorities for public health systems research on preparedness should focus on using engineering-style methods to identify core preparedness processes, developing novel data sources and measures based on smaller-scale proxy events, and developing performance improvement approaches to support the translation of research into practice within the wide variety of public health systems found in the nation. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:247–250)

Although increasing evidence suggests that children are at particular risk from disasters and evidence-based practices have been developed to triage and treat them effectively, no strategy or concept of operations linking best practices for disaster response is currently in place. To our knowledge, this report describes the first effort to address this critical gap and outlines a triage-driven children's disaster mental health incident response strategy for seamless preparedness, response, and recovery elements that can be used now. The national children's disaster mental health concept of operations (NCDMH CONOPS) details the essential elements needed for an interoperable, coordinated response for the mental health needs of children by local communities, counties, regions, and states to better meet the needs of children affected by disasters and terrorism incidents. This CONOPS for children proposes the use of an evidence-based, rapid triage system to provide a common data metric to incident response and recovery action and to rationally align limited resources to those at greater need in a population-based approach.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:174–181)

Recognized limitations to data in disaster management have led to dozens of initiatives to strengthen data gathering and decision-making during disasters. These initiatives are complicated by fundamental problems of definitions of terms, ambiguity of concepts, lack of standardization in methods of data collection, and inadequate attempts to strengthen the analytic capability of field organizations. Cross-cutting issues in needs assessment, coordination, and evaluation illustrate additional recurring challenges in dealing with evidence in humanitarian assistance. These challenges include lack of agency expertise, dyscoordination at the field level, inappropriate reliance on indicators that measure process rather than outcome, flawed scientific inference, and erosion of the concept of minimum standards.

Decision-making in disaster management currently places a premium on expert or eminence-based decisions. By contrast, scientific advances in disaster medicine call for evidence-based decisions whose strength of evidence is established by the methods of data acquisition. At present, disaster relief operations may be data driven, but that does not mean that they are soundly evidence-based.

Options for strengthening evidence-based activities include rigorously adhering to evidenced-based interventions, using evidence-based tools to identify new approaches to problems of concern, studying model programs as well as failed ones to identify approaches that deserve replication, and improving standards for evidence of effectiveness in disaster science and services.

Evidence is defined as data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based. In the early 1990s, medical clinicians pioneered evidence-based decision-making. The discipline emerged as the use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine required the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available, external clinical evidence from systematic research and the patient's unique values and circumstances. In this context, evidence acquired a hierarchy of strength based upon the method of data acquisition.

Subsequently, evidence-based decision-making expanded throughout the allied health field. In public health, and particularly for populations in crisis, three major data-gathering tools now dominate: (1) rapid health assessments; (2) population based surveys; and (3) disease surveillance. Unfortunately, the strength of evidence obtained by these tools is not easily measured by the grading scales of evidence-based medicine. This is complicated by the many purposes for which evidence can be applied in public health—strategic decision-making, program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Different applications have different requirements for strength of evidence as well as different time frames for decision-making. Given the challenges of integrating data from multiple sources that are collected by different methods, public health experts have defined best available evidence as the use of all available sources used to provide relevant inputs for decision-making.

This paper suggests strategies for implementing the EU food based dietary guidelines. Dietary guidelines have been developed and disseminated in many countries across the world. However, the EU guidelines are the first to include a specific section on implementation. The aims of the guidelines are twofold, 1) to provide food based dietary guidelines which can be used as a consistent communication tool and 2) as a springboard to planning, implementing, and evaluating public health nutrition strategies.

The report is not intended to be prescriptive. It aims to build upon a solid evidence base to provide practical and cost effective suggestions for developing public health strategies, which member countries can use and tailor to the social, cultural and health needs of their populations.

Diet and physical activity related diseases impose vast costs on the European economy. However, despite the enormous costs to healthcare systems and in terms of lost productivity, there have been a very few resources allocated in Europe to attempting to prevent these, rather than treating them.

The burden of disease exists in the majority of the population, and not in high-risk groups. The optimal public health strategy is thus to focus on the population as a whole, rather than targeting those with increased risk factors or pre-existing disease. Reviews have been carried out on the health impact effectiveness of various types of intervention to promote healthy eating and physical activity in the population. These conclude that the most effective interventions a) adopt an integrated, multidisciplinary, and comprehensive approach b) involve a complementary range of actions, and c) work at an individual, community, environmental and policy level. Information provision in isolation is not effective, and may exacerbate inequalities in health.

In some countries inequities in diet and physical activity are not only significant contributors to inequalities in health, but are increasing. Effective interventions to address inequities need to tackle the broader determinants of health, including social exclusion, social cohesion, environmental, and structural factors.

One of the most easily transferable frameworks for the development of public health strategies attempts to capture the individual, community, environmental and policy levels, by working through ‘target groups’, ‘settings’, and ‘approaches’. The Working Party has suggested outline strategies for each of the key target groups, setting and approaches which it has identified as having the potential for maximum reach and influence. The key characteristics of effective interventions for each of these is given.

Finally, the evidence base points to the importance of a co-ordinated, multisectoral and population wide strategy. In order to develop and implement such strategies, identifiable structures and mechanisms will be needed at a national level within member states.

An increasing body of research in support of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for adolescent depression has emerged during the last two decades. However, it has been suggested that empirically supported treatments are seldom carried out in clinical practice. Although the reasons for this are likely to be diverse, it is argued that mental health services have an ethical responsibility to offer evidence-based interventions. Whether empirically supported interventions, such as CBT, are consistently offered to depressed adolescents attending Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) is currently unknown. A primary aim of this study was to survey the use of CBT for depression in a number of United Kingdom (UK) CAMHS settings. A postal questionnaire was sent to 117 members of the BABCP Children, Adolescents and Families Special Interest Branch, of which 44 completed questionnaires were returned. Descriptive statistics indicate that just over half of the organizations represented routinely offered CBT to depressed adolescents. CBT practice and the transportation of evidence-based research findings to CAMHS settings are discussed.