首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>American Journal of Public Hygiene >The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review
【2h】

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

机译:行业赞助对研究议程的影响:研究范围

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>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.
机译:>背景。公司利益有可能通过影响研究议程(即进行研究的第一步)来影响公众辩论和政策制定,在研究的第一步中定义了研究的目的并界定了问题。 strong>目标。我们进行了范围界定审查,以识别和综合研究行业赞助对不同领域研究议程的影响的研究。>搜索方法。我们搜索了MEDLINE,Scopus和Embase (从成立到2017年9月),以解决公司对研究议程的影响的所有原始研究和系统评价。我们手动搜索了纳入研究的参考文献清单,并与该领域的专家联系,以确定其他研究。>选择标准。我们纳入了经验性文章和系统评价,探讨了行业研究的赞助及其对研究议程的影响。任何领域。研究设计,语言或测得的结果没有任何限制。我们不包括社论,信函和评论,以及专门关注行业赞助对研究其他阶段(如方法,结果和结论)的影响的文章,或者排除行业赞助没有与其他资金来源分开报告的文章。>数据收集和分析。至少要筛选2位作者,然后从每项研究中提取任何定量或定性数据。我们按设计将研究主题进行分组,以通过设计和结果报告进行描述性分析。在归纳所有研究之前,我们归纳地开发了主题。两名研究者使用牛津大学循证医学中心对纳入研究的证据水平进行了独立评估。>主要结果。我们纳入了36篇文章。 19个横断面研究通过赞助对研究主题的模式进行了定量分析,结果表明,行业倾向于将重点放在可以商品化的产品,过程或活动上的调查领域置于优先地位。七项研究分析了行业内部文件,并通过优先考虑支持行业政策和法律立场的主题,提供了行业用于重塑整个研究领域的策略的见解。十项研究通过调查和访谈来探索研究人员的经验和对行业资助对研究议程影响的看法,表明他们通常意识到赞助可能影响研究重点选择的风险。>结论。 strong>公司利益可以使研究议程远离与公共卫生最相关的问题。需要采取对策来抵消公司对研究议程的影响,包括加大对资金来源的披露和已发表文章中的利益冲突,以评估商业偏见。我们还建议采取信息披露之外的政策行动,例如增加对独立研究的资金投入,并制定严格的准则来规范研究机构与商业实体的互动。>对健康的公共影响。对研究议程的影响使该行业通过影响可用证据的类型和所考虑的公共卫生解决方案的种类来影响决策的潜力。我们范围界定审查的结果支持需要制定战略来抵消公司对研究议程的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号