ArticleHumanities & social sciences communications2026
Understanding pharmaceutical industry coalitions: a case study of Mallinckrodt.
Article in Humanities & social sciences communications, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The opioid industry has used coalitions to lobby for policies beneficial to its interests and to influence public discourse. In this study, we reviewed the creation of Mallinckrodt's Alliance for Balanced Pain Management (AfBPM) to better understand opioid industry coalitions. We searched the Opioid Industry Documents Archive (OIDA), an online, open-access collection of documents released in US litigation against opioid manufacturers, for materials on AfBPM. We conducted a retrospective qualitative content analysis of 132 documents, including emails, press releases, and internal presentations, by coding them by themes drawn from the Policy Dystopia model. In the mid-2010s, Mallinckrodt created AfBPM to position itself as a responsible opioid manufacturer. It recruited independent organizations and held a 2014 summit to draw press attention. It sought to convey the message that opioid misuse was the responsibility of healthcare providers and patients, and used its website, news media campaigns, op-eds, and social media to spread these messages. Mallinckrodt used AfBPM as a tool to recruit other organizations and to claim that patients and prescribers were responsible for opioid misuse. Understanding industry use of coalitions like AfBPM can help develop policies that prevent healthcare-focused coalitions from being co-opted by pharmaceutical manufacturers.
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.