Dataset Information

Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community.

ABSTRACT: ISSUES:Alcohol companies have recently invested large sums of money in answering research questions to which they have clear vested interests in the outcomes. There have been extensive concerns about corporate influence on public health sciences, following the experience with the tobacco industry. APPROACH:This systematic review aims to investigate the perspectives of researchers on the activities of alcohol industry actors in relation to science, in order to guide future research. All data published in peer-reviewed journals (including commentaries, opinion pieces, editorials and letters as well as research reports) were eligible for inclusion. This analysis focuses on the manifest rather than latent content of the articulated views, and accordingly adopts a thematic analysis using an inductive approach to the generation of themes. KEY FINDINGS:There are serious concerns identified in three main areas, principally defined by where the impacts of industry scientific activities occur; on evidence informed policy making (instrumental uses of research by industry actors), on the content of the scientific evidence base itself (industry funding as a source of bias); and on the processes of undertaking research (transgressions of basic scientific norms). There are also opposing views which provide a useful critique. The evidence-base on the validity of all concerns has been slow to develop. IMPLICATIONS:The concerns are extensive, longstanding and unresolved and high quality investigations are needed. CONCLUSION:This study informs the detailed content of the research needed to address the concerns identified here.

SUBMITTER: McCambridge J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6055701 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community.

McCambridge Jim J Mialon Melissa M

Drug and alcohol review 20180613 5

<h4>Issues</h4>Alcohol companies have recently invested large sums of money in answering research questions to which they have clear vested interests in the outcomes. There have been extensive concerns about corporate influence on public health sciences, following the experience with the tobacco industry.<h4>Approach</h4>This systematic review aims to investigate the perspectives of researchers on the activities of alcohol industry actors in relation to science, in order to guide future research ...[more]

PMID: 29900619

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the findings from individual qualitative studies on patients' understanding and experiences of hypertension and drug taking; to investigate whether views differ internationally by culture or ethnic group and whether the research could inform interventions to improve adherence.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis of qualitative research using the 2006 UK Economic and Social Research Council research methods programme guidance.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, the British Nursing Index, Social Policy and Practice, and PsycInfo from inception to October 2011.Study selectionQualitative interviews or focus groups among people with uncomplicated hypertension (studies principally in people with diabetes, established cardiovascular disease, or pregnancy related hypertension were excluded).Results59 papers reporting on 53 qualitative studies were included in the synthesis. These studies came from 16 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Tanzania, and Thailand). A large proportion of participants thought hypertension was principally caused by stress and produced symptoms, particularly headache, dizziness, and sweating. Participants widely intentionally reduced or stopped treatment without consulting their doctor. Participants commonly perceived that their blood pressure improved when symptoms abated or when they were not stressed, and that treatment was not needed at these times. Participants disliked treatment and its side effects and feared addiction. These findings were consistent across countries and ethnic groups. Participants also reported various external factors that prevented adherence, including being unable to find time to take the drugs or to see the doctor; having insufficient money to pay for treatment; the cost of appointments and healthy food; a lack of health insurance; and forgetfulness.ConclusionsNon-adherence to hypertension treatment often resulted from patients' understanding of the causes and effects of hypertension; particularly relying on the presence of stress or symptoms to determine if blood pressure was raised. These beliefs were remarkably similar across ethnic and geographical groups; calls for culturally specific education for individual ethnic groups may therefore not be justified. To improve adherence, clinicians and educational interventions must better understand and engage with patients' ideas about causality, experiences of symptoms, and concerns about drug side effects.

Dataset Information

Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community.

Publications

Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets