ArticleBMJ public health2026
Which types of research and knowledge translation are most likely to lead to public health-informed policy responses to unhealthy commodities? A UK-based cross-sectional survey and focus group-based study.
Article in BMJ 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Products of unhealthy commodity industries (UCIs) are major drivers of non-communicable diseases. The role of evidence in supporting regulation of these products remains underexplored. This study examined how different types of research and knowledge translation activities influenced policy change across unhealthy commodities. Methods: A study was conducted combining an online survey and three focus groups. Participants included researchers, civil servants, and advocates working on tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food. An inductive coding framework was developed. Themes were subsequently interpreted using the policy cycle to examine research influence across stages of policymaking. Results: 27 survey and 15 focus group participants contributed to the study. Participants described the need for multiple, complementary forms of evidence to advance policy change, conceptualised as an 'evidence jigsaw'. Different evidence types were perceived as particularly influential at different policy stages (eg, epidemiological evidence for agenda setting, modelling and international experience for policy formulation, lived experience and public opinion for policy adoption and monitoring and evaluation post-adoption to prevent policy rollback). Evidence on UCIs was identified as distinctive in cutting across all policy stages and was perceived as more developed and influential in tobacco control than in alcohol or unhealthy food policy. Effective knowledge translation was facilitated by collaboration between researchers and advocates and timely engagement with policymakers, while misalignment between research production and policy windows posed key challenges. Conclusions: Effective regulation of unhealthy commodities relies on assembling a range of evidence types aligned with policy needs, timing and context, alongside active knowledge translation. The experience of tobacco control illustrates how a more complete 'evidence jigsaw', including evidence on industry conduct, can support sustained policy action. Greater cross-sectoral learning and dialogue among public health actors might help accelerate progress in other sectors.
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.