ArticleAmerican journal of public health2011
Health advocacy organizations and the pharmaceutical industry: an analysis of disclosure practices.
Article in American journal of public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Stigma, Scarcity and the Price of Legitimacy: Chronic Pain Advocacy and the Politics of Pharmaceutical Partnerships in Canada.Sociology of health & illness · 2026Article
- Role of health workers and representative health worker organisations in LMIC pharmaceutical policy: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Information About Canadian Patient Groups' Conflicts of Interest and Industry Funding-Incomplete, Inconsistent, and Unreliable: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Pharmaceutical Ethics and Grassroots Activism in the United States: A Social History Perspective.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Article
- "Asset exchange"-interactions between patient groups and pharmaceutical industry: Australian qualitative study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
- Medicines Information and the Regulation of the Promotion of Pharmaceuticals.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- The intersections of industry with the health research enterprise.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Exposing drug industry funding of UK patient organisations.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
- Industry Support of Patient Advocacy Organizations: The Case for an Extension of the Sunshine Act Provisions of the Affordable Care Act.American journal of public health · 2018Article
- Debates about Conflict of Interest in Medicine: Deconstructing a Divided Discourse.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017Review
- The politicization of oncology drug funding reviews in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health advocacy organizations (HAOs) are influential stakeholders in health policy. Although their advocacy tends to closely correspond with the pharmaceutical industry's marketing aims, the financial relationships between HAOs and the pharmaceutical industry have rarely been analyzed. We used Eli Lilly and Company's grant registry to examine its grant-giving policies. We also examined HAO Web sites to determine their grant-disclosure patterns. Only 25% of HAOs that received Lilly grants acknowledged Lilly's contributions on their Web sites, and only 10% acknowledged Lilly as a grant event sponsor. No HAO disclosed the exact amount of a Lilly grant. As highly trusted organizations, HAOs should disclose all corporate grants, including the purpose and the amount. Absent this disclosure, legislators, regulators, and the public cannot evaluate possible conflicts of interest or biases in HAO advocacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.