ArticleHealth promotion international2023
Vaping industry participation standards in health organizations: an exploratory policy content analysis.
Article in Health promotion international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to strengthen primary health care? An exploratory study on the policy of vertical integration of high-quality medical resources based on symbiosis theory.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Tobacco industry narratives of e-cigarette use in the UK: a qualitative framing analysis.Health promotion international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The vaping industry has been found to employ similar tactics to tobacco industry actors to seek credibility and distort the scientific evidence base around the health harms of nicotine vaping products. As vaping industry interests undermine vaping control efforts, safeguards are necessary to protect against this influence. We aimed to examine health organizations' policies on vaping industry participation in their activities in Australia. A descriptive approach integrating policy analysis and key informant surveys was used to obtain vaping industry participation information from health research stakeholders. Descriptive statistics on organization type, policy document type, policy document industry focus (tobacco or vaping) and respondent role and responsibility were collected. We used framework analysis to identify themes describing organizational allowances, constraints, and rationale for vaping industry research participation. Relevant health organizations were identified within Australia for policy searching (n = 156), which identified 47 unique policy documents. After contacting 267 key stakeholders from eligible organizations, 31 survey responses were analysed. Research organizations and universities were highly represented in both the policy and survey data. Most health research stakeholders recognized that vaping industry interests counteract public health priorities and opposed vaping industry participation. However, many organizations lacked clear, vaping industry-specific participation policies. To protect the integrity of the emerging evidence base around vaping harms which inform vaping policy, health organizations require strong, comprehensive policies to resist vaping industry participation in research.
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.