Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37344818›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2023

Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature.

Britta K Matthes, Praveen Kumar, Sarah Dance, Tom Hird, Angela Carriedo Lutzenkirchen, Anna B Gilmore

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Countering Tobacco Industry Interference: A Policy Brief on Strengthening the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Adoption in India.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

6 authors.

Britta K MatthesDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA27AY, UK. bkm28@bath.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2346-066X
Praveen KumarManipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Sarah DanceDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA27AY, UK.
Tom HirdDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA27AY, UK.
Angela Carriedo LutzenkirchenDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA27AY, UK.
Anna B GilmoreDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA27AY, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been remarkable tobacco control progress in many places around the globe. Tobacco industry interference (TII) has been identified as the most significant barrier to further implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). Civil society has been recognised as a key actor in countering TII. While TII has been extensively studied for several decades now, there is little research that focuses on counteractions to limit it and their effectiveness to do so. This scoping review seeks to map the peer-reviewed literature on civil society's activities of countering TII in policymaking to identify common counterstrategies and assess their effectiveness.

methodsData sources: We searched Embase, IBSS, JSTOR, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science using the following terms: ("Tobacco industry" OR "Tobacco compan*") AND. ("corporate political activity" OR "CPA" OR "lobbying" OR "interference") AND ("advoca*" OR "counter*" OR "activi*"), without time or language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Our selection criteria included peer-reviewed studies that were written in English, German, or Spanish that drew on primary data and/or legal and policy documents and reported at least one specific example of civil society members or organisations countering tobacco industry action-based strategies. DATA EXTRACTION: Advocates' counterstrategies were analysed inductively and countered industry strategies were analysed using the Policy Dystopia Model (PDM). Perceptions of effectiveness of countering attempts were analysed descriptively.

resultsWe found five common counterstrategies among 30 included papers covering five WHO regions; 1. Exposing industry conduct and false claims; 2. Accessing decision-makers; 3. Generating and using evidence; 4. Filing a complaint or taking legal action; 5. Mobilising coalition and potential supporters. These counterstrategies were used to work against a wide range of industry strategies, which are captured by five action-based strategies described in the PDM (Coalition Management, Information Management, Direct Access and Influence, Litigation, Reputation Management). While some studies reported the outcome of the countering activities, their impact remained largely underexplored.

conclusionThe review shows that peer-reviewed literature documenting how civil society actors counter TII is scarce. It suggests that advocates employ a range of strategies to counter TII in its different forms and use them flexibly. More work is needed to better understand the effects of their actions. This could stimulate discussions about, and facilitate learning from, past experiences and help to further enhance advocates' capacity.

Indexed as

Tobacco IndustryHumansPolicy MakingPoliticsWorld Health OrganizationAdvocacyCivil societyTobacco controlTobacco industry interference

Identifiers

PMID37344818
PMCPMC10286487

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.