Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41758808›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2026

"Who the hell is upstream pushing them all in?" Reclaiming public health's defining metaphor to counter the commercial determinants of health.

May C I van Schalkwyk, Benjamin Hawkins, Jeff Collin, Mark Petticrew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

May C I van SchalkwykGlobal Health Policy Unit, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2210-2289
Benjamin HawkinsMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7027-8046
Jeff CollinGlobal Health Policy Unit, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Mark PetticrewDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6378-5517

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public health policy and practice are often described by means of a metaphor that depicts interventions as "upstream" efforts to prevent people from falling into a river, from which they must be rescued "downstream" by overwhelmed healthcare services. The upstream-downstream metaphor has been described as public health's defining metaphor. We apply a commercial determinants of health lens to re-engage with the initial intentions of McKinlay's seminal 1975 essay from which this metaphor emerged, and to critique its current uses. We examine how the upstream-downstream metaphor has come to be used in ways that depart radically from its original intent, which was to characterise the practices of powerful commercial actors who profit from the production of harm and disease. The subtle but important shift in language from people being pushed, to falling into the river, among other depoliticising processes, contributes to an individualising and victim-blaming approach to health harms, deflecting from the role of commercial power and practices. There is a pressing need to reclaim public health's defining metaphor as part of the wider agenda to address commercial determinants as the major public health challenges of our time.

Identifiers

PMID41758808
PMCPMC12948116

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.