Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39012886›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

"Ad hoc policy decisions" in the news: Media framing analysis of a pesticide import ban in Sri Lanka.

Lisa Schölin, Pramila Hashini, Rajaratnam Kanapathy, May Ci van Schalkwyk, Michael Eddleston, Flemming Konradsen, Manjula Weerasinghe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Lisa SchölinCentre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1348-672X
Pramila HashiniFaculty of Medicine, South Asian Clinical Toxicology Research Collaboration, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
Rajaratnam KanapathyFaculty of Medicine, South Asian Clinical Toxicology Research Collaboration, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7615-6130
May Ci van SchalkwykFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Michael EddlestonCentre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Flemming KonradsenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Manjula WeerasingheCentre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern agriculture relies on pesticides to maximise outputs. While many highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) are banned in places like the European Union due to concerns about harm to the environment and human health, their use continues in many low- and middle-income counties (LMICs). Pesticide suicide is a public health problem unique to countries where HHPs are used, and Sri Lanka has successfully implemented several HHP bans as part of a suicide prevention strategy. On 27 April 2021, the Sri Lankan government announced an imminent import ban of all fertilizers and pesticides which was later revoked in November 2021. The aim of this article was to explore the media framing of the import ban as it pertained to pesticides. Guided by Entman's typology of frame functions, we analysed newspaper articles from nine Sri Lankan newspapers (N = 102) between 20 April to 31 October 2021. Overall, most framings were supportive of the ban, captured by framings that articulated the ban through a health, environment, and organic farming narrative. Framings that foregrounded farmer or industry livelihoods and the pesticide market were primarily adopted to express opposition to the ban. The presence of frames opposing the ban within media articles increased over time during the study period. There was a greater proportion of opposing frames in private newspapers compared to government (78% vs 22%). Many of the articles analysed described the widespread impact of the ban, but only 11% of articles represented the voices of policy end users. This study adds understanding to the ways communication via outlets like mainstream newspapers may shape public support or opposition to pesticide bans in a LMIC. Mass media is an under-recognised factor in policy implementation and this study may inform planning to implement pesticide bans in other countries.

Identifiers

PMID39012886
PMCPMC11251609

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.