Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26036703›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2016

The role of public law-based litigation in tobacco companies' strategies in high-income, FCTC ratifying countries, 2004-14.

Sarah L Steele, Anna B Gilmore, Martin McKee, David Stuckler

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 'Tobacco control · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah L SteeleCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 2AB, UK.
Anna B GilmoreDepartment for Health and UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Martin McKeeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
David StucklerDepartment of Sociology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Bath · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Tobacco Companies, Global Governance and Public HealthR01CA160695 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF BATH · PI GILMORE, ANNA B · 2011 to 2013
$1.3M
Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160695Wellcome Trust 100709
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTobacco companies use a host of strategies to undermine public health efforts directed to reduce and eliminate smoking. The success, failure and trends in domestic litigation used by tobacco companies to undermine tobacco control are not well understood, with commentators often assuming disputes are trade related or international in nature. We analyse domestic legal disputes involving tobacco companies and public health actors in high-income countries across the last decade to ascertain the types of action and the success or failure of cases, develop effective responses.

methodsWorldLii, a publicly available online law repository, was used to identify domestic court cases involving tobacco companies from 2004 to 2014, while outcome data from LexisNexis and Westlaw databases were used to identify appeals and trace case history.

resultsWe identified six domestic cases in the UK, Australia and Canada, noting that the tobacco industry won only one of six cases; a win later usurped by legislative reform and a further court case. Nevertheless, we found cases involve significant resource costs for governments, often progressing across multiple jurisdictional levels. DISCUSSION: We suggest that, in light of our results, while litigation takes up significant time and incurs legal costs for health ministries, policymakers must robustly fend off suggestions that litigation wastes taxpayers' money, pointing to the good prospects of winning such legal battles.

Indexed as

AustraliaCanadaHumansJurisprudencePublic Health AdministrationSmoking CessationTobacco IndustryUnited Kingdomglobal healthgovernancelawlitigationtobacco

Identifiers

PMID26036703
PMCPMC5072156
OpenAlexW2156289071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.