MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043713170 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034082

Mechanisms for addressing and managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3043713170 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mélissa Mialon, Stefanie Vandevijvere, Angela Carriedo‐Lutzenkirchen, Lisa Bero, Fábio da Silva Gomes, Mark Petticrew, Martin McKee, David Stückler, Gary Sacks

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de AntioquiaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloInternational Development Research CentreWellcome TrustAmerican University of Beirut
KeywordsMedicinePublic healthHealth services researchHealth policyPublic health policyPublic relationsPublic policyEngineering ethicsNursingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We identified mechanisms for addressing and/or managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice, as well as examples of where these mechanisms have been adopted from across the globe. DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review. We conducted searches in five databases on 4 June 2019. Twenty-eight relevant institutions and networks were contacted to identify additional mechanisms and examples. In addition, we identified mechanisms and examples from our collective experience working on the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice. SETTING: We identified mechanisms at the national, regional and global levels. RESULTS: Thirty-one documents were included in our review. Eight were peer-reviewed scientific articles. Nine discussed mechanisms to address and/or manage the influence of different types of industries; while other documents targeted specific industries. In total, we identified 49 mechanisms for addressing and/or managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice, and 43 of these were adopted at the national, regional or global level. We identified four main types of mechanisms: transparency; management of interactions with industry and of conflicts of interest; identification, monitoring and education about the practices of corporations and associated risks to public health; prohibition of interactions with industry. Mechanisms for governments (n=17) and academia (n=13) were most frequently identified, with fewer for the media and civil society. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several mechanisms that could help address and/or manage the negative influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice. If adopted and evaluated more widely, many of the mechanisms described in this manuscript could contribute to efforts to prevent and control non-communicable diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 27 May 2019 (https://osf.io/xc2vp).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.211
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.491
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2110.491
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0560.042
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0190.020
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0110.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.706
GPT teacher head0.634
Teacher spread0.072 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainIncentives
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations134
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207