CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 317Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review

Open access
Fabbri, Alice, Lai, Alexandra, Grundy, Quinn, Bero, Lisa Anne·2018·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.2018.304677PMC PMC6187765
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background. Corporate interests have the potential to influence public debate and policymaking by influencing the research agenda, namely the initial step in conducting research, in which the purpose of the study is defined and the questions are framed. Objectives. We conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesize studies that explored the influence of industry sponsorship on research agendas across different fields. Search Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase (from inception to September 2017) for all original research and systematic reviews addressing corporate influence on the research agenda. We hand searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies. Selection Criteria. We included empirical articles and systematic reviews that explored industry sponsorship of research and its influence on research agendas in any field. There were no restrictions on study design, language, or outcomes measured. We excluded editorials, letters, and commentaries as well as articles that exclusively focused on the influence of industry sponsorship on other phases of research such as methods, results, and conclusions or if industry sponsorship was not reported separately from other funding sources. Data Collection and Analysis. At least 2 authors independently screened and then extracted any quantitative or qualitative data from each study. We grouped studies thematically for descriptive analysis by design and outcome reported. We developed the themes inductively until all studies were accounted for. Two investigators independently rated the level of evidence of the included studies using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine ratings. Main Results. We included 36 articles. Nineteen cross-sectional studies quantitatively analyzed patterns in research topics by sponsorship and showed that industry tends to prioritize lines of inquiry that focus on products, processes, or activities that can be commercialized. Seven studies analyzed internal industry documents and provided insight on the strategies the industry used to reshape entire fields of research through the prioritization of topics that supported its policy and legal positions. Ten studies used surveys and interviews to explore the researchers’ experiences and perceptions of the influence of industry funding on research agendas, showing that they were generally aware of the risk that sponsorship could influence the choice of research priorities. Conclusions. Corporate interests can drive research agendas away from questions that are the most relevant for public health. Strategies to counteract corporate influence on the research agenda are needed, including heightened disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in published articles to allow an assessment of commercial biases. We also recommend policy actions beyond disclosure such as increasing funding for independent research and strict guidelines to regulate the interaction of research institutes with commercial entities. Public Health Implications. The influence on the research agenda has given the industry the potential to affect policymaking by influencing the type of evidence that is available and the kinds of public health solutions considered. The results of our scoping review support the need to develop strategies to counteract corporate influence on the research agenda.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2018.304677

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Lundh A, 2017, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, 1
  2. Huehnergarth NF, 2015, Emails reveal how Coca-Cola shaped the anti-obesity global energy balance network
  3. 10.1215/03616878-21-3-515 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bero L, 2018, Tob Control
  5. 2008, Global Health Watch 2: An Alternative World Health Report

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 317

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Fabbri, A., Lai, A., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. A.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
2018-11
Volume
108
Issue
11
Pages
e9-e16
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.2018.304677
PMC
PMC6187765
OpenAlex
W2892388218
Cited by
317
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
Keywords
industry funding, research agenda setting, corporate influence on research, research funding, conflicts of interest, commercial bias, research priorities, industry lobbying, research regulation, public health research, research ethics committees, research ethics training, research ethics oversight
MeSH terms
Industry, Policy Making, Research Support as Topic, Conflict of Interest

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review