Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32840634›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of public health2020

Attitudes and practices of public health academics towards research funding from for-profit organizations: cross-sectional survey.

Rima Nakkash, Ahmed Ali, Hala Alaouie, Khalil Asmar, Norbert Hirschhorn, Sanaa Mugharbil, Iman Nuwayhid, Leslie London, Amina Saban, Sabina Faiz Rashid and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Rima NakkashFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ahmed AliFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Hala AlaouieFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Khalil AsmarFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Norbert HirschhornIndependent Consultant, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sanaa MugharbilFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Iman NuwayhidFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Leslie LondonSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Amina SabanSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Sabina Faiz RashidJames P. Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Md Koushik AhmedJames P. Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Cecile KnaiLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Charlotte BiglandUK Specialty Registrar, Severn Postgraduate Medical Education School of Public Health, Health Education England, London, UK.
Rima A AfifiDepartment of Community and Behavioral Health, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, 145 N Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA, USA. rima-afifi@uiowa.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3154-3617
American University of Beirut · LBBRAC University · BDUniversity of Cape Town · ZAHealth Education England · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

IDRC 106773-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe growing trend of for-profit organization (FPO)-funded university research is concerning because resultant potential conflicts of interest might lead to biases in methods, results, and interpretation. For public health academic programmes, receiving funds from FPOs whose products have negative health implications may be particularly problematic.

methodsA cross-sectional survey assessed attitudes and practices of public health academics towards accepting funding from FPOs. The sampling frame included universities in five world regions offering a graduate degree in public health; 166 academics responded. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were conducted.

resultsOver half of respondents were in favour of accepting funding from FPOs; attitudes differed by world region and gender but not by rank, contract status, % salary offset required, primary identity, or exposure to an ethics course. In the last 5 years, almost 20% of respondents had received funding from a FPO. Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that there was potential for bias in seven aspects of the research process, when funds were from FPOs.

conclusionsGlobally, public health academics should increase dialogue around the potential harms of research and practice funded by FPOs.

Indexed as

AdultBiomedical ResearchConflict of InterestCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFinancing, OrganizedForecastingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic HealthResearch PersonnelUniversitiesCommercial determinants of healthConflict of interestFor-profit corporationFundingPublic healthUnhealthy commodity industries

Identifiers

PMID32840634
PMCPMC7497330
OpenAlexW3080379546

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.