ArticleJournal of public health policy2015
Commentary: Moving towards policy coherence in trade and health.
Article in Journal of public health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- International trade and investment: still the foundation for tackling nutrition related non-communicable diseases in the era of Trump?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
- International trade and investment law: a new framework for public health and the common good.BMC public health · 2018Article
- The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Should We "Fear the Fear"? Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
- Advancing Public Health on the Changing Global Trade and Investment Agenda Comment on "The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?"International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
International trade has brought economic benefits to many countries, but the association of trade and investment liberalisation with poor health outcomes concerns the public health community. The need to secure more 'healthy' trade is a recognised priority, especially as countries move from global to regional/bilateral trade agreements - with greater public health risks. However, a transition towards 'healthier trade' may be hindered by worldview differences between the trade and health communities. There is a tendency for health actors to perceive trade as a threat to population health, and for trade actors to view health as a constraint to trade objectives of reducing barriers to cross-border commercial flows and economic growth. Unless such differing worldviews can be aligned, finding ways forward for addressing public health in trade policy is likely to be difficult. Moving forward will involve understanding the values and drivers of the respective groups, and developing solutions palatable to their various interests. Given the power imbalances between the two areas, it is likely that the health community will have to make the first moves in this respect. This article outlines the key issues involved and suggests areas where such moves have been, and may be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26245251What 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.