The Commercial Determinants of Health and Evidence Synthesis (CODES): methodological guidance for systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses

被引:10
作者
Petticrew, Mark [1 ]
Glover, Rebecca E. [1 ]
Volmink, Jimmy [2 ]
Blanchard, Laurence [1 ]
Cott, Eadaoin [3 ]
Knai, Cecile [1 ]
Maani, Nason [4 ]
Thomas, James [5 ]
Tompson, Alice [1 ]
van Schalkwyk, May C. I. [1 ]
Welch, Vivian [6 ]
机构
[1] LSHTM, Fac Publ Hlth & Policy, London WC1H 9SH, England
[2] Stellenbosch Univ, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Global Hlth, Stellenbosch, South Africa
[3] Univ Bath, Dept Hlth, Bath, England
[4] Univ Edinburgh, Sch Social & Polit Sci, Global Hlth Policy Unit, Edinburgh EH8 9LD, Scotland
[5] UCL, UCL Inst Educ, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL, England
[6] Univ Ottawa, Bruyere Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
Systematic reviews; Methods; Commercial determinants of health; Funding bias; ALCOHOL INDUSTRY; TOBACCO; POLICY; INTERVENTIONS; FRAMEWORK; SMOKING; HARMS; NEED;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-023-02323-0
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundThe field of the commercial determinants of health (CDOH) refers to the commercial products, pathways and practices that may affect health. The field is growing rapidly, as evidenced by the WHO programme on the economic and commercial determinants of health and a rise in researcher and funder interest. Systematic reviews (SRs) and evidence synthesis more generally will be crucial tools in the evolution of CDOH as a field. Such reviews can draw on existing methodological guidance, though there are areas where existing methods are likely to differ, and there is no overarching guidance on the conduct of CDOH-focussed systematic reviews, or guidance on the specific methodological and conceptual challenges.Methods/resultsCODES provides guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews focussed on CDOH, from shaping the review question with input from stakeholders, to disseminating the review. Existing guidance was used to identify key stages and to provide a structure for the guidance. The writing group included experience in systematic reviews and other forms of evidence synthesis, and in equity and CDOH research (both primary research and systematic reviews).ConclusionsThis guidance highlights the special methodological and other considerations for CDOH reviews, including equity considerations, and pointers to areas for future methodological and guideline development. It should contribute to the reliability and utility of CDOH reviews and help stimulate the production of reviews in this growing field.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 117 条
[1]   Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews [J].
Anderson, Laurie M. ;
Petticrew, Mark ;
Rehfuess, Eva ;
Armstrong, Rebecca ;
Ueffing, Erin ;
Baker, Phillip ;
Francis, Daniel ;
Tugwell, Peter .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2011, 2 (01) :33-42
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2016, Public Health Panor, V2, P124
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2022, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2017, Preventing policy capture: integrity in public decision making
[5]  
[Anonymous], WHO statement on Philip Morris-funded Foundation For A Smoke Free World
[6]   Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions [J].
Barnes, DE ;
Bero, LA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 279 (19) :1566-1570
[7]  
Bero L., 2023, The Commercial Determinants of Health
[8]   Tobacco industry manipulation of research [J].
Bero, LA .
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS, 2005, 120 (02) :200-208
[9]   Risky business? Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of health consumer groups [J].
Bero, Lisa A. ;
Parker, Lisa .
AUSTRALIAN PRESCRIBER, 2021, 44 (03) :74-76
[10]   A study is 21 times more likely to find unfavourable results about the nutrition label Nutri-Score if the authors declare a conflict of interest or the study is funded by the food industry [J].
Besancon, Stephane ;
Beran, David ;
Batal, Malek .
BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH, 2023, 8 (05)