other aims, the Iranian Health Promoting School (IHPS) program that was launched in 2011, has an important aim of promoting dietary behaviors of adolescents. The present study, therefore, aimed to investigate the factors affecting unhealthy snacking of adolescents and provide evidence for a more effective IHPS program.Methods: In a cross-sectional study design, 1320 students from 40 schools in Kerman city were selected using a proportional stratified random sampling method. A modified qualitative Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) was used to gather data about unhealthy snacking behavior. Data about intrapersonal and environmental factors were obtained using a validated and reliable questionnaire. A mixed-effects negative-binomial regression model was used to analyze the data.Results: Taste and sensory perception (prevalence rate ratio [PRR] =1.18; 95% CI: 1.09-1.27), being a male (PRR=1.20; 95% CI: 1.05-1.38) and lower nutritional knowledge (PRR=0.96; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99) were associated with higher weekly unhealthy snaking. Perceived self-efficacy (PRR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.91-1.00) negatively influenced the frequency of unhealthy snaking, with this approaching significance (P<.06). In case of environmental factors, high socio-economic status (SES) level (PRR=1.45; 95% CI: 1.26-1.67), single-parent family (PRR=1.14; 95% CI: 1.01-1.30), more social norms pressure (PRR=1.08; 95% CI: 1.01-1.17), pocket money allowance (PRR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.09-1.34), easy accessibility (PRR=1.06; 95% CI: 1.01-1.11), and less perceived parental control (PRR=0.96; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99) all had a role in higher consumption of unhealthy snacks. Interestingly, larger school size was associated with less unhealthy snacking (PRR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.68-0.92).Conclusion: Unhealthy snacking behavior is influenced by individual, socio-cultural and physical-environmental influences, namely by factors relating to poor parenting practices, high SES level, family characteristics, improper social norms pressure, and less knowledge and self-efficacy of students. This evidence can be used to inform a more evidence-based IHPS program through focusing on supportive strategies at the home, school, and local community levels.

Background: In light of worrying public health developments such as declining life expectancy gains and increasing health inequalities, there is a heightened interest in the relationship between politics and health. This scoping review explores the possible welfare policy consequences of populist radical right (PRR) parties in Europe and the implications for population health. The aim is to map the available empirical evidence regarding the influence of PRR parties on welfare policy reforms and to understand how this relationship is mediated by political system characteristics in different countries. Methods and Analysis: A scoping review of peer-reviewed empirical literature addressing the relationship between PRR parties, political systems and welfare policy in Europe was performed using the methodology by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data was charted on main study characteristics, concepts and relevant results, after which a qualitative content analysis was performed. The data was categorised according to the political system characteristics: constitution, political economy, interest representation and partisanship. Five expert interviews were conducted for validation purposes. Early evidence from 15 peer-reviewed articles suggests that exclusionary welfare chauvinistic positions of PRR parties are likely to have negative effects on the access to welfare provisions and health of vulnerable population groups. Differences in implementation of welfare chauvinistic policy reforms are partly explained by mediation of the constitutional order (judicial institutions at national and European Union [EU] level), political economy (healthcare system funding and European single market) and partisanship (vote-seeking strategies by PRR and mainstream parties). No clear evidence was found regarding the influence of interest representation on welfare chauvinistic policies. Discussion: While early evidence suggests that the welfare chauvinistic ideology of PRR parties is harmful for public health, the possible mediating role of political system characteristics on PRR welfare policy influence offers risk and protective factors explaining why the PRR ideology plays out differently across Europe.

Building on Rinaldi and Bekker's scoping review of articles on the impact of populist radical right (PRR) politics on welfare and population health, this short article formulates three pointers towards a framework that might help structure future research into PRR, populist politics more generally, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other health issues. First, we discuss the centrality of welfare chauvinism to the PRR’ s impact on health, taking this as a cue for a broader reflection on the importance on distinguishing between the nativist and populist dimensions of PRR politics. Secondly, we turn our attention to the potential moderating effect of the PRR's welfare chauvinism on the welfare cuts proposed by their right-wing coalition partners, comments we see as pointing to the need to focus on nativist, populist, neoliberal and other threats to welfare policy more generally, rather than on the PRR only. Thirdly, we reflect on the paradoxical nature of welfare chauvinism-its negative consequences for the health of the 'own people' it proclaims to defend-as a starting point for a brief discussion of the need to consider carefully the not-so-straightforward relation between the PRR's political rhetoric, its (impact on) policy and institutions, and the outcomes of such policy.

This commentary considers the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the study of populist radical right (PRR) politicians and their influence on public health and health policy. A systematic review of recent research on the influence of PRR politicians on the health and welfare policies shows that health is not a policy arena that these politicians have much experience in. In office, their effects can be destructive, primarily because they subordinate health to their other goals. Brazil, the US and the UK all show this pattern. PRR politicians in opposition such as the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ ) in Austria or the Lega in Italy, said very little during the actual health crisis, but once the public no longer appeared afraid they lost no time in reactivating anti-European Union (EU) sentiments. Whether in government or in opposition, PRR politicians opted for distraction and denial. Their effects ranged from making the pandemic worse.

In this short commentary, we examine the implications of the welfare chauvinism of the populist radical right (PRR) for health inequalities by examining the international evidence about the impact of previous periods of welfare state contraction on population health and health inequalities. We argue that parties from various political traditions have in fact long engaged in stigmatisation of welfare recipients to justify welfare state retrenchment, a technique that the PRR have now ‘ weaponised. ’ We conclude by reflecting on implications of the rise of the PRR for the future of welfare states and health inequalities in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

To what extent has the rise of populist radical right (PRR) parties in Europe affected welfare policies? Based on a scoping review of studies that address the relationship between PRR parties and welfare policy, Chiara Rinaldi and Marleen Bekker conclude that, due to their welfare chauvinistic positions, the participation of PRR parties in government coalitions is likely to have negative effects on the access to welfare provisions and health of vulnerable population groups. This short commentary reflects on this review article and critically examines its conclusion. It suggests some conceptual clarifications, raises some reservations about the review's main claim, and provides some follow-up questions.

Rinaldi and Bekker ask whether populist radical right (PRR) parties have an influence on population health and health equity. The assumption is that this influence is negative, but mediated by political system characteristics. Starting from the authors’ premise that the positions of PRR parties on welfare policies are a good proxy for health outcomes, we build on political science literature to suggest further avenues for research. The equivocal relationship between political parties and the ownership of specific healthcare, health insurance and public health issues invites studies that break down party positions relating to different health policy issues. As policy-makers use social representations of target populations to make policy decisions and anticipate the feedback these decisions might generate, it is worth studying how PRR parties influence societal, institutional and partisan perceptions of deserving and undeserving populations, even when they are not in government.