Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesTo compare the odds of depression in obese and overweight children with that in normal-weight children in the community.DesignSystematic review and random-effect meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sourcesEMBASE, PubMed and PsychINFO electronic databases, published between January 2000 and January 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesCross-sectional or longitudinal observational studies that recruited children (aged <18 years) drawn from the community who had their weight status classified by body mass index, using age-adjusted and sex-adjusted reference charts or the International Obesity Task Force age-sex specific cut-offs, and concurrent or prospective odds of depression were measured.ResultsTwenty-two studies representing 143 603 children were included in the meta-analysis. Prevalence of depression among obese children was 10.4%. Compared with normal-weight children, odds of depression were 1.32 higher (95% CI 1.17 to 1.50) in obese children. Among obese female children, odds of depression were 1.44 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.72) higher compared with that of normal-weight female children. No association was found between overweight children and depression (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14) or among obese or overweight male subgroups and depression (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.41% and 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37, respectively). Subgroup analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies separately revealed childhood obesity was associated with both concurrent (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45) and prospective odds (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.88) of depression.ConclusionWe found strong evidence that obese female children have a significantly higher odds of depression compared with normal-weight female children, and this risk persists into adulthood. Clinicians should consider screening obese female children for symptoms of depression.BackgroundChildhood mental illness is poorly recognised by healthcare providers and parents, despite half of all lifetime cases of diagnosable mental illness beginning by the age of 14 years. 1 Globally, depression is the leading cause of disease burden, as measured by disability-adjusted life years, in children aged 10–19 years. 2 Untreated, it is associated with poor school performance and social functioning, substance misuse, recurring depression in adulthood and increased suicide risk, which is the second leading cause of preventable death among young people. 3–6 The resulting cost to the National Health Service of treating depression is estimated at over £2 billion, and the wider social and economic impact of depression is likely to be considerable. 7

Adolescence is a pivotal point in the life course, characterised by transformative physical, cognitive, and emotional growth, an openness to change, and a drive to reshape the social environment. It offers unique opportunities to adopt changes in diet and physical activity that can persist into later life. Yet pre-existing nutritional problems, including micronutrient deficiencies, food insecurity, and poor-quality diets, persist at the same time as adolescents face the rapid emergence of an obesity epidemic. Adolescent growth and nutrition has been largely overlooked in intervention and policy research. Most intervention studies have emphasised micronutrient supplementation, with few taking into account the multiple drivers of adolescent diets. This Series paper highlights that effective interventions and policies will need to cut across sectors; be supported by multifaceted and multilevel policy; and extend across education, health, food systems, social protection, and digital media. Better data standardisation and systems will be essential in coordinating and monitoring these responses. In a context of shifts in planetary ecosystems and commercial drivers, resilient food systems will need to both ensure access to healthy and affordable foods and provide the infrastructure and incentives for continuing physical activity. Intergenerational partnerships with young people will be essential in bringing about transformative change and ensuring that food policies reflect their needs and aspirations.

The consequences on mental health can be profound. Rather than being helped, the UK's hostile immigration environment has also spilled into the health system, where it has led to the charging of migrants for hospital care in the otherwise free at the point of access NHS and the sharing of data with the Home Office. [...]policies have consequences for the physical and psychosocial health of migrants, already vulnerable due to complex and intersecting needs, ranging from treatment ruptures for chronic conditions, including mental health problems, to limited access to resources. © Anna Konik Many governments argue for tighter border controls and elections have been won on this mandate.

Internationally, we have witnessed the vilification of particular nationalities, with overt forms of sinophobia.6 Politically, xenophobia has been weaponised to enforce border controls against particular nationalities and undermine migrant rights.7 In the UK, minoritised ethnic groups are more likely to contract a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and, subsequently, face a higher risk of a severe form of illness. People from minoritised ethnic groups are more likely to work as key workers in frontline jobs that expose them to SARS-CoV-2, and are more likely to live in overcrowded accommodation, meaning social distancing is not an option.8 They are then more likely to have barriers to accessing health services, meaning that they present late in a worse condition, and with a higher probability of underlying illnesses that put them at greater risk of death. [...]racism is more than this, it is a fundamental cause of ill health.10 At all socioeconomic levels, people of colour have poorer health outcomes.11 Racism cumulates over the lifecourse, leading to activation of stress responses and hormonal adaptations, increasing the risk of non-communicable diseases and biological ageing.12 This trauma is also transmitted intergenerationally and affects the offspring of those initially affected through complex biopsychosocial pathways.13 The root of these so-called biological causes is racism, not race itself.

Garza describes the successive “wars” that US presidents have waged on various groups, each adversely affecting Black and minoritised populations: the “war on drugs” (Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush), the “war on gangs” (Bill Clinton), the “war on terror” (George W Bush and Barack Obama) to, arguably, a war on truth under outgoing President Donald Trump. In the US example, an enduring history of racism, rooted in white supremacy, in the genocide of Indigenous people and the transatlantic slave trade, in housing laws resulting in segregation, the criminal justice system, and in public education, among other factors, results in the oppression of Black, Indigenous, and people of colour and in racial health inequities. [...]in building EqualHealth and the Social Medicine Consortium's global Campaign Against Racism, long-standing relationships, collective education, decentralised leadership, and iterative dialogue were a few of the key ingredients for success. Despite the recent widespread proclamations against racism, anti-racism work is subversive to the current global system of racial capitalism and is often poorly funded and supported. [...]movement-building efforts often rely on deep relationships and personal sacrifice instead of waiting for sustained funding.

Climate change has a broad range of health impacts and tackling climate change could be the greatest opportunity for improving global health this century. Yet conversations on climate change and health are often incomplete, giving little attention to structural discrimination and the need for racial justice. Racism kills, and climate change kills. Together, racism and climate change interact and have disproportionate effects on the lives of minoritised people both within countries and between the Global North and the Global South. This paper has three main aims. First, to survey the literature on the unequal health impacts of climate change due to racism, xenophobia, and discrimination through a scoping review. We found that racially minoritised groups, migrants, and Indigenous communities face a disproportionate burden of illness and mortality due to climate change in different contexts. Second, this paper aims to highlight inequalities in responsibility for climate change and the effects thereof. A geographical visualisation of responsibility for climate change and projected mortality and disease risk attributable to climate change per 100 000 people in 2050 was conducted. These maps visualise the disproportionate burden of illness and mortality due to climate change faced by the Global South. Our third aim is to highlight the pathways through which climate change, discrimination, and health interact in most affected areas. Case studies, testimony, and policy analysis drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives are presented throughout the paper to elucidate these pathways. The health community must urgently examine and repair the structural discrimination that drives the unequal impacts of climate change to achieve rapid and equitable action.