ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Evaluating industry attempts to influence public health: Applying an ethical framework in understanding commercial determinants of health.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This paper explores industry influence on public health using a specific case study and applies an established ethical framework based on eleven principles to explore Commercial Determinants of Health (CDoH). It demonstrates an application of these principles to evaluate the ethical integrity of industry strategies and practices and their impacts on public health. Methods: Using eleven a priori, deductive, ethical principles as codes, this paper conducted an in-depth analysis of 19 e-mail chains and accompanying documents made publicly available through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) sent between Coca-Cola representatives, lobbyists, academics, and the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), founded by former Coca-Cola executives. Results: The three principles violated most frequently amongst the documents were consumer sovereignty ( Conclusions: This case study of Coca-Cola demonstrates the usefulness of this ethics framework in reviewing actions of corporate actors in the promotion of products that are harmful to human health. It shows that the industry at times has low ethical integrity in their various strategies and practices to promote their products despite the negative impacts of these products on public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.