Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32610752›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2021

Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool.

Rob Ralston, Sarah E Hil, Fabio da Silva Gomes, Jeff Collin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Protecting nutrition in a food crisis.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rob RalstonGlobal Health Policy Unit, Social Policy, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8664-3565
Sarah E HilGlobal Health Policy Unit, Social Policy, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3555-433X
Fabio da Silva GomesDepartment of Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health, Pan-American Health Organization/World Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4997-4642
Jeff CollinGlobal Health Policy Unit, Social Policy, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0874-8892

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith multi-stakeholder approaches central to efforts to address global health challenges, debates around conflict of interest (COI) are increasingly prominent. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently developed a proposed tool to support member states in preventing and managing COI in nutrition policy. We analysed responses to an online consultation to explore how actors from across sectors understand COI and the ways in which they use this concept to frame the terms of commercial sector engagement in health governance.

methodsSubmissions from 44 Member States, international organisations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and commercial sector actors were coded using a thematic framework informed by framing theory. Respondents' orientation to the tool aligned with two broad frames, ie, a 'collaboration and partnership' frame that endorsed multi-stakeholder approaches and a 'restricted engagement' frame that highlighted core tensions between public health and food industry actors.

resultsResponses to the WHO tool reflected contrasting conceptualisations of COI and implications for health governance. While most Member States, NGOs, and academic institutions strongly supported the tool, commercial sector organisations depicted it as inappropriate, unworkable and incompatible with the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). Commercial sector respondents advanced a narrow, individual-level understanding of COI, seen as adequately addressed by existing mechanisms for disclosure, and viewed the WHO tool as unduly restricting scope for private sector engagement in nutrition policy. In contrast, health-focused NGOs and several Member States drew on a more expansive understanding of COI that recognised scope for wider tensions between public health goals and commercial interests and associated governance challenges. These submissions mostly welcomed the tool as an innovative approach to preventing and managing such conflicts, although some NGOs sought broader exclusion of corporate actors from policy engagement.

conclusionSubmissions on the WHO tool illustrate how contrasting positions on COI are central to understanding broader debates in nutrition policy and across global health governance. Effective health governance requires greater understanding of how COI can be conceptualised and managed amid high levels of contestation on policy engagement with commercial sector actors. This requires both ongoing innovation in governance tools and more extensive conceptual and empirical research.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestNutrition PolicyHumansPrivate SectorReferral and ConsultationWorld Health OrganizationCommercial SectorConflict of InterestGlobal HealthHealth GovernanceNutrition

Identifiers

PMID32610752
PMCPMC9056191

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.