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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“This bias is of special concern when research is funded by an entity that has an interest in outcomes that are favourable to its own commercial, academic, or other interests.123”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration. (2021) · cites this paper as [123]
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
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting
Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., Kastner, M., & Moher, D. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 · Cited by 2,783
Industry sponsorship and research outcome
Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000033.pub3 · Cited by 1,697
Self-citationParticipation of Life-Science Faculty in Research Relationships with Industry
Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199612053352305 · Cited by 461
Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions
Barnes, D. E. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.19.1566 · Cited by 442
Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles
Lesser, L. I., Ebbeling, C. B., Goozner, M., Wypij, D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005 · Cited by 421
University-Industry Research Relationships in Biotechnology: Implications for the University
Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., Louis, K. S., Stoto, . A., & Wise, D. A. (1986) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3715452 · Cited by 328
Bero, L., Oostvogel, F., Bacchetti, P., & Lee, K. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184 · Cited by 249
Self-citationBarnes, D. E., & Bero, L. A. (1996) · Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law · doi:10.1215/03616878-21-3-515 · Cited by 176 · cited 2×
“Moreover, the results of these studies were presented in legal and policy settings to support the tobacco industry position.(28)”
BackgroundSelf-citationPediatric Versus Adult Drug Trials for Conditions With High Pediatric Disease Burden
Bourgeois, F. T., Murthy, S., Pinto, C., Olson, K. L., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Mandl, K. D. (2012) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0139 · Cited by 149
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Lundh A, 2017, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, 1
- Huehnergarth NF, 2015, Emails reveal how Coca-Cola shaped the anti-obesity global energy balance network
- 10.1215/03616878-21-3-515 · DOI · Paper page
- Bero L, 2018, Tob Control
- 2008, Global Health Watch 2: An Alternative World Health Report
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Oral diseases: a global public health challenge
Peres, M. A., Macpherson, L. M. D., Weyant, R. J., Daly, B., Venturelli, R., Mathur, M. R., Listl, S., Celeste, R. K., Guarnizo-Herreño, C. C., Kearns, C., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31146-8 · Cited by 4,054
Skrivankova, V. W., Richmond, R. C., Woolf, B. A. R., Davies, N. M., Swanson, S. A., VanderWeele, T. J., Timpson, N. J., Higgins, J. P. T., Dimou, N., Langenberg, C., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n2233 · Cited by 1,648
Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health: where are we at and why does it matter?
Shannon, G. D., Jansen, M., Williams, K., Cáceres, C. F., Motta, A., Odhiambo, A., Eleveld, A., & Mannell, J. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)33135-0 · Cited by 589
Béné, C. (2022) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105881 · Cited by 238
Wright, A., Arthaud-Day, M. L., & Weiss, M. L. (2021) · Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology · doi:10.3389/fcell.2021.632717 · Cited by 155
“Industry-sponsored research is more focused on topics with a clear commercial application and an established large market share (Fabbri et al., 2018).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Fabbri, A., Lai, A., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- 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
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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