A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products.
A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003757
复制
发表时间：
2014-02-12
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Gilmore AB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hatchard JL;Fooks GJ;Evans-Reeves KA;Ulucanlar S;Gilmore AB
在英国政府决定“观望”直到有更多证据之前，研究跨国烟草公司（TTC）证明烟草产品标准化包装“行不通”的证据的数量、相关性和质量。内容分析。我们分析了2012年英国四大TTC向英国卫生部提交的标准化包装咨询文件中引用的证据。将TTC引用的证据的数量、相关性（主题）和质量（通过独立于行业和同行评审来衡量）与标准化包装系统性综述的证据进行比较。Fisher精确检验用于评估TTC和系统综述证据质量的差异。对100%的数据进行二次编码以验证结果：94.7%的编码器间可靠性;所有差异均得到解决。TTC引用的143件证据中有77件被用来宣传他们的说法，即标准化包装“行不通”。其中，只有17/77涉及标准化包装：14个与行业有关，没有一个在同行评审期刊上发表。TTC和标准化包装系统评价证据的比较表明，在烟草行业联系和同行评议方面，行业证据的质量明显较低（p<0.0001）。最相关的TTC证据（标准化包装或一般包装，n=26）的质量显著低于最不相关的证据（其他主题，n=51）（p<0.0001）。在整个数据集中，TTC相关证据在同行评审期刊上发表的可能性显著降低（p=0.0045）。除了少数例外，TTC引用的证据来宣传他们的说法，即标准化包装“行不通”，缺乏政策相关性或关键的质量指标。政策制定者可以使用这三个标准-主题，独立性和同行审查状态-来严格评估公司利益通过更好的监管流程提交给他们的证据。
To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products ‘won't work’, following the UK government's decision to ‘wait and see’ until further evidence is available. Content analysis. We analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. The volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved. 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045). With few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’ lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria—subject matter, independence and peer-review status—to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Gibbons, Michael;Parker, David
通讯作者：
Parker, David
影响因子：
6
作者：
Hong, Mi-Kyung;Bero, Lisa A.
通讯作者：
Bero, Lisa A.
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Garne, D;Watson, M;Byrne, F
通讯作者：
Byrne, F
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Hahn, RW;Litan, RE
通讯作者：
Litan, RE
DOI：
10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00907.x
发表时间：
2012-10-01
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Hoek, Janet;Gendall, Philip;Edwards, Richard
通讯作者：
Edwards, Richard