Influence of Disclosed and Undisclosed Funding Sources in Tobacco Harm Reduction Discourse: A Social Network Analysis.
Influence of Disclosed and Undisclosed Funding Sources in Tobacco Harm Reduction Discourse: A Social Network Analysis.
复制标题
公开和未公开资金来源对减少烟草危害话语的影响：社交网络分析。
DOI：
10.1093/ntr/ntac250
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ling,Pamela
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vassey,Julia;Hendlin,YogiH;Vora,Manali;Ling,Pamela
烟草危害减少（THR）的话语在烟草控制界一直存在分歧，部分原因是它有时会将公共卫生和烟草行业的利益结合起来。行业资助是有争议的，因为它影响研究结果，并不总是在科学出版物中披露。本研究探讨了通过社会网络analysis.MethodsWe审查了826英语手稿（1992年至2016年），以确定披露和未披露的行业（制药，烟草和电子烟）和非行业（包括政府）的支持，1405作者的THR出版物的披露和未披露的行业支持的作用。我们使用社会网络分析，以确定最有影响力的作者在THR话语通过评估他们的合作者在出版物的数量，连接其他作者在网络中的频率，并倾向于形成集团的基础上存在的赞助披露，资金来源，和THR station.ResultsAbout 284（20%）的1405作者的支持行业。与非行业赞助的作者相比，行业赞助的作者在网络中更具中心性和影响力：出版物数量是非行业赞助的作者的两倍（中位数= 4），出版物的合作者数量为1.25（中位数= 5），并且与其他作者联系的可能性更高，因此在网络中具有更大的影响力。电子烟行业赞助的作者与未公开的行业support.ConclusionsAuthors的关联最强的行业支持比非行业支持的作者对THR科学话语产生了更强的影响。期刊应继续遵守严格的政策，要求披露利益冲突。增加烟草控制研究的公共卫生支出可能是实现资金均等的必要条件。
IntroductionTobacco harm reduction (THR) discourse has been divisive for the tobacco control community, partially because it sometimes aligns public health and tobacco industry interests. Industry funding is contentious as it influences study outcomes, and is not always disclosed in scientific publications. This study examines the role of disclosed and undisclosed industry support on THR publications via social network analysis.MethodsWe reviewed 826 English-language manuscripts (1992–2016) to determine disclosed and undisclosed industry (pharmaceutical, tobacco, and e-cigarette) and non-industry (including government) support received by 1405 authors. We used social network analysis to identify the most influential authors in THR discourse by assessing the number of their collaborators on publications, the frequency of connecting other authors in the network, and tendency to form groups based on the presence of sponsorship disclosures, sources of funding, and THR stance.ResultsAbout 284 (20%) out of 1405 authors were supported by industry. Industry-sponsored authors were more central and influential in the network: with twice as many publications (Median = 4), 1.25 as many collaborators on publications (Median = 5), and higher likelihood of connecting other authors and thus having more influence in the network, compared to non-industry-sponsored authors. E-cigarette industry-sponsored authors had the strongest association with undisclosed industry support.ConclusionsAuthors with industry support exerted a stronger influence on the THR scientific discourse than non-industry-supported authors. Journals should continue adhering to strict policies requiring conflicts of interest disclosures. An increase in public health spending on tobacco control research may be necessary to achieve funding parity.