Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39657150›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2024

Reclaiming the narrative: countering harmful commercial discourses.

May C I van Schalkwyk, Nason Maani, Benjamin Hawkins, Mark Petticrew, Kent Buse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

May C I van SchalkwykDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2210-2289
Nason MaaniGlobal Health Policy Unit School of Social and Political Science, College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Edinburgh, 15a George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3398-0688
Benjamin HawkinsMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hospital, Hills Rd, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Mark PetticrewDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK.
Kent BuseGlobal Health 50/50, The Guildhall Market Square, Cambridge CB2 3QJ, UK.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationCancer Research UKCharities: British Heart FoundationDepartment of Health and Social CareEconomic and Social Research Council and Natural Environment Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilGlobal HealthGovernment: Scottish Government Chief Scientist OfficeHCRW_Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7Mental Health ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR3000156NIHR and Public Health AgencyNIHR Applied Research Collaboration North ThamesSPECTRUMUK Prevention Research PartnershipUKRI Research Councils: Medical Research CouncilWellcome and The Health FoundationWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discourses promoted by powerful commercial actors whose business activities are damaging to health undermine the potential for the transformational changes urgently needed to address pressing public health and environmental threats globally. This piece provides an analysis of corporate discursive practices and the mechanisms through which they contaminate scientific and policy debates and harm public and environmental health. We refer to this phenomenon as 'discursive pollution' to reflect the parallels between the effects of informational strategies and the commercial activities of harmful industries. It aims to contribute to the literature on the commercial determinants of health by offering a cross-industry perspective of discursive practices and the contradictions that underpin industry-favourable discourses. We propose how the health community can facilitate the construction of alternative discourses by revealing the contradictions and assumptions underpinning industry-favourable discourses.

Indexed as

CommerceEnvironmental HealthHumansIndustryPublic Healthcommercial determinants of healthcommercial practicesconflicts of interestdiscoursesdoubtequityframingglobal healthpollution

Identifiers

PMID39657150
PMCPMC11630776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.