IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijphth/v65y2020i7d10.1007_s00038-020-01416-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes and practices of public health academics towards research funding from for-profit organizations: cross-sectional survey

Author

Listed:
  • Rima Nakkash

    (American University of Beirut)

  • Ahmed Ali

    (American University of Beirut)

  • Hala Alaouie

    (American University of Beirut)

  • Khalil Asmar

    (American University of Beirut)

  • Norbert Hirschhorn

    (Independent Consultant)

  • Sanaa Mugharbil

    (American University of Beirut)

  • Iman Nuwayhid

    (American University of Beirut)

  • Leslie London

    (University of Cape Town)

  • Amina Saban

    (University of Cape Town)

  • Sabina Faiz Rashid

    (BRAC University)

  • Md Koushik Ahmed

    (BRAC University)

  • Cecile Knai

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

  • Charlotte Bigland

    (Health Education England)

  • Rima A. Afifi

    (University of Iowa)

Abstract

Objectives The growing trend of for-profit organization (FPO)-funded university research is concerning because resultant potential conflicts of interest might lead to biases in methods, results, and interpretation. For public health academic programmes, receiving funds from FPOs whose products have negative health implications may be particularly problematic. Methods A cross-sectional survey assessed attitudes and practices of public health academics towards accepting funding from FPOs. The sampling frame included universities in five world regions offering a graduate degree in public health; 166 academics responded. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results Over half of respondents were in favour of accepting funding from FPOs; attitudes differed by world region and gender but not by rank, contract status, % salary offset required, primary identity, or exposure to an ethics course. In the last 5 years, almost 20% of respondents had received funding from a FPO. Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that there was potential for bias in seven aspects of the research process, when funds were from FPOs. Conclusions Globally, public health academics should increase dialogue around the potential harms of research and practice funded by FPOs.

Suggested Citation

  • Rima Nakkash & Ahmed Ali & Hala Alaouie & Khalil Asmar & Norbert Hirschhorn & Sanaa Mugharbil & Iman Nuwayhid & Leslie London & Amina Saban & Sabina Faiz Rashid & Md Koushik Ahmed & Cecile Knai & Char, 2020. "Attitudes and practices of public health academics towards research funding from for-profit organizations: cross-sectional survey," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(7), pages 1133-1145, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijphth:v:65:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s00038-020-01416-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s00038-020-01416-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00038-020-01416-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00038-020-01416-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Babor, T.F. & Robaina, K., 2013. "Public health, academic medicine, and the alcohol industry's corporate social responsibility activities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(2), pages 206-214.
    2. Brandt, A.M., 2012. "Inventing conflicts of interest: A history of Tobacco industry tactics," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(1), pages 63-71.
    3. Emily Savell & Anna B Gilmore & Gary Fooks, 2014. "How Does the Tobacco Industry Attempt to Influence Marketing Regulations? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    4. Jeff Collin & Sarah E Hill & Mor Kandlik Eltanani & Evgeniya Plotnikova & Rob Ralston & Katherine E Smith, 2017. "Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, September.
    5. Lisa Bero & Fieke Oostvogel & Peter Bacchetti & Kirby Lee, 2007. "Factors Associated with Findings of Published Trials of Drug–Drug Comparisons: Why Some Statins Appear More Efficacious than Others," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(6), pages 1-10, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tess Legg & Jenny Hatchard & Anna B Gilmore, 2021. "The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Eastmure, Elizabeth & Cummins, Steven & Sparks, Leigh, 2020. "Non-market strategy as a framework for exploring commercial involvement in health policy: A primer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    3. Linda Hancock & Natalie Ralph & Florentine Petronella Martino, 2018. "Applying Corporate Political Activity (CPA) analysis to Australian gambling industry submissions against regulation of television sports betting advertising," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Katherine Cullerton & Jean Adams & Oliver Francis & Nita Forouhi & Martin White, 2019. "Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Valente, Thomas W. & Pitts, Stephanie & Wipfli, Heather & Vega Yon, George G., 2019. "Network influences on policy implementation: Evidence from a global health treaty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 188-197.
    6. John C. Boik, 2016. "Optimality of Social Choice Systems: Complexity, Wisdom, and Wellbeing Centrality," Working Paper 0005, Principled Societies Project, revised Mar 2017.
    7. Daniel M Cook & Elizabeth A Boyd & Claudia Grossmann & Lisa A Bero, 2007. "Reporting Science and Conflicts of Interest in the Lay Press," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-5, December.
    8. Wancong Leng & Rui Mu, 2020. "Barriers to Tobacco Control in China: A Narrative Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Antoine Popelut & Fabien Valet & Olivier Fromentin & Aurélie Thomas & Philippe Bouchard, 2010. "Relationship between Sponsorship and Failure Rate of Dental Implants: A Systematic Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-9, April.
    10. Townsend, Belinda & Schram, Ashley & Labonté, Ronald & Baum, Fran & Friel, Sharon, 2019. "How do actors with asymmetrical power assert authority in policy agenda-setting? A study of authority claims by health actors in trade policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Ariel Bardach & Andrea Alcaraz & Javier Roberti & Agustín Ciapponi & Federico Augustovski & Andrés Pichon-Riviere, 2021. "Optimizing Tobacco Advertising Bans in Seven Latin American Countries: Microsimulation Modeling of Health and Financial Impact to Inform Evidence-Based Policy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-13, May.
    12. Benjamin Wood & Gary Ruskin & Gary Sacks, 2020. "How Coca-Cola Shaped the International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health: An Analysis of Email Exchanges between 2012 and 2014," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Matthew Tieu & Michael Lawless & Sarah C. Hunter & Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza & Francis Darko & Alexandra Mudd & Lalit Yadav & Alison Kitson, 2023. "Wicked problems in a post-truth political economy: a dilemma for knowledge translation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Scott, C. & Hawkins, B. & Knai, C., 2017. "Food and beverage product reformulation as a corporate political strategy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 37-45.
    15. Gary Sacks & Devorah Riesenberg & Melissa Mialon & Sarah Dean & Adrian J Cameron, 2020. "The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Tatiane Nunes Pereira & Gisele Ane Bortolini & Roberta de Freitas Campos, 2023. "Barriers and Facilitators Related to the Adoption of Policies to Reduce Ultra-Processed Foods Consumption: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-27, March.
    17. Hawkins, Benjamin & Durrance-Bagale, Anna & Walls, Helen, 2021. "Co-regulation and alcohol industry political strategy: A case study of the Public Health England-Drinkaware Drink Free Days Campaign," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    18. Julia Stafford & Tanya Chikritzhs & Hannah Pierce & Simone Pettigrew, 2021. "An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Frank Houghton & Sharon Houghton & Diane O’Doherty & Derek McInerney & Bruce Duncan, 2019. "Greenwashing tobacco—attempts to eco-label a killer product," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(1), pages 82-85, March.
    20. Nason Maani Hessari & May CI van Schalkwyk & Sian Thomas & Mark Petticrew, 2019. "Alcohol Industry CSR Organisations: What Can Their Twitter Activity Tell Us about Their Independence and Their Priorities? A Comparative Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-12, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ijphth:v:65:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s00038-020-01416-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.