Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39569485›Full record

ReviewHealth promotion international2024

Intimidation against advocates and researchers in the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces: a review.

Karen A Evans-Reeves, Britta K Matthes, Phil Chamberlain, Nino Paichadze, Anna B Gilmore, Melissa Mialon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health promotion international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Karen A Evans-ReevesTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3257-416X
Britta K MatthesTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2346-066X
Phil ChamberlainTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK.
Nino PaichadzeDepartment of Global Health and the Center on Commercial Determinants of Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
Anna B GilmoreTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0281-1248
Melissa MialonUniversite Rennes, EHESP, CNRS, Inserm, Arènes-UMR 6051, RSMS (Recherche sur les Services et Management en Santé)-U 1309, Rennes, France.

Funding

Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco UseBloomberg PhilanthropiesGlobal Public Health Institution Vital Strategies
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unhealthy commodity industries (UCIs) engage in corporate political activity, using diverse practices, including intimidatory tactics, to thwart, delay and dilute regulations that threaten their businesses. While examples of such intimidation exist across multiple sectors, no attempt has been made to synthesize these. Furthermore, much of the literature focuses on intimidation of policy-makers. Less is known about the types of intimidation experienced by advocates and researchers and their responses to this intimidation. This scoping review explores the literature across the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces for instances of intimidation and categorizes them inductively and deductively based on a framework of intimidation types. Similarly, responses to intimidation were mapped onto a pre-existing framework. We found intimidatory tactics towards advocates and researchers in every sector. Public discreditation, followed by legal threats and action, complaints and freedom of information requests were most frequently mentioned and often attributed to UCIs or their third parties. Surveillance, threats of violence, violence, burglary and bribery were less prevalent in the literature and their perpetrators were unknown. Those intimidated reported carrying on as normal, defensive action (changing/adapting work, taking security precautions) or, as was most reported, offensive action (exposing intimidation, correcting misinformation, taking legal action). The similarity of intimidation across sectors suggests that UCIs engage in similar intimidatory tactics regardless of sector. Understanding more about the scale of intimidation and how it impacts the work and wellbeing of those affected is essential, as is learning more about the ways researchers and advocates can effectively pre-empt and respond.

Indexed as

Fast FoodsAlcoholic BeveragesConsumer AdvocacyFood, ProcessedHumansResearch PersonnelTobacco Productscorporate political activityintimidationlegal challengespublic discreditationsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID39569485
PMCPMC11579607

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.