Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30871025›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

Alcohol Industry CSR Organisations: What Can Their Twitter Activity Tell Us about Their Independence and Their Priorities? A Comparative Analysis.

Nason Maani Hessari, May Ci van Schalkwyk, Sian Thomas, Mark Petticrew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The attributes of public health leadership.European journal of public health · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nason Maani HessariDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; London WC1H 9SH, UK. nason.maani-hessari@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3398-0688
May Ci van SchalkwykDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London W6 6RP, UK. m.van-schalkwyk@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2210-2289
Sian ThomasDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK. sian.thomas@btinternet.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0917-0068
Mark PetticrewDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK. mark.petticrew@lshtm.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are concerns about the accuracy of the health information provided by alcohol industry (AI)-funded organisations and about their independence. We conducted a content analysis of the health information disseminated by AI-funded organisations through Twitter, compared with non-AI-funded charities, to assess whether their messages align with industry and/or public health objectives. We compared all tweets from 2016 from Drinkaware (UK); Drinkaware.ie (Ireland); and DrinkWise (Australia), to non-AI-funded charities Alcohol Concern (UK), Alcohol Action Ireland, and FARE (Australia). Industry-funded bodies were significantly less likely to tweet about alcohol marketing, advertising and sponsorship; alcohol pricing; and physical health harms, including cancers, heart disease and pregnancy. They were significantly more likely to tweet about behavioural aspects of drinking and less likely to mention cancer risk; particularly breast cancer. These findings are consistent with previous evidence that the purpose of such bodies is the protection of the alcohol market, and of the alcohol industry's reputation. Their messaging strongly aligns with AI corporate social responsibility goals. The focus away from health harms, particularly cancer, is also consistent with previous evidence. The evidence does not support claims by these alcohol-industry-funded bodies about their independence from industry.

Indexed as

Alcoholic BeveragesFood IndustryPublic HealthSocial MediaSocial ResponsibilityAlcohol DrinkingAustraliaHumansIrelandMarketingUnited Kingdomalcohol industrycancerpublic healthsocial mediathematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID30871025
PMCPMC6427731

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.