Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35036514›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2022

Manufacturing doubt: Assessing the effects of independent vs industry-sponsored messaging about the harms of fossil fuels, smoking, alcohol, and sugar sweetened beverages.

N Maani, M C I van Schalkwyk, F T Filippidis, C Knai, M Petticrew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Addressing tobacco industry influence in tobacco-growing countries.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

N MaaniDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
M C I van SchalkwykDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
F T FilippidisDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
C KnaiSPECTRUM Research Consortium, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
M PetticrewDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S037519/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Manufacturers of harmful products engage in misinformation tactics long employed by the tobacco industry to emphasize uncertainty about scientific evidence and deflect negative attention from their products. This study assessed the effects of one type of tactic, the use of "alternative causation" arguments, on public understanding. Methods In five trials (one for each industry) anonymized Qualtrics panel respondents were randomized to receive a message on the risk in question from one of four industry sponsored organizations (exposure), or from one of four independent organizations (control), on risks related to alcohol, tobacco, fossil fuel and sugar sweetened beverages. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate the effect of industry arguments about uncertainty on the primary outcome of public certainty about product risk, adjusting for age, gender and education. The results from all five trials were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Findings In total, n=3284 respondents were exposed to industry-sponsored messaging about product-related risks, compared to n=3297 exposed to non-industry messages. Across all industries, exposure to industry-sponsored messages led to greater reported uncertainty or false certainty about risk, compared to non-industry messages [Summary odds ratio (OR) 1·60, confidence interval (CI) 1·28-1·99]. The effect was greater among those who self-rated as not/slightly knowledgeable (OR 2·24, CI 1·61-3·12), or moderately knowledgeable (OR 1·85, CI 1·38-2·48) compared to those very/extremely knowledgeable (OR 1·28, CI 1·03-1·60). Conclusions This study demonstrates that exposure to industry sponsored messages which appear intended to downplay risk significantly increases uncertainty or false certainty, with the effect being greater in less knowledgeable participants.

Indexed as

Commercial determinants of healthHealth promotionMisinformation

Identifiers

PMID35036514
PMCPMC8749266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.