Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey

Cullerton, Katherine; Adams, Jean; Francis, Oliver; Forouhi, Nita G.; White, Martin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221250

Cited by 11 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is no general or specific rule for an optimal number of panelists, with this number varying in many Delphi studies [ 49 , 50 , 51 ]. In this study, the focus was on involving participants with heterogenous expertise and covering all relevant EH perspectives, as well as including experts from national and local institutions [ 52 , 53 ]. The main areas of expertise of Delphi participants are presented in Table 1 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting Indicators to Monitor and Assess Environmental Health in a Portuguese Urban Setting: A Participatory Approach

Salgado

Vieira

Torres³

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental health (EH) is influenced by complex interactions between health and the built and natural environments, there being little research on its specificities in urban settings. The use of suitable indicators to monitor and assess EH is fundamental in informing evidence-based interventions at the local level. A participatory approach to selecting indicators to inform the monitoring and assessment of EH in Lisbon is herein considered. Evidence derived from a systematic review of literature and data from Lisbon and Portuguese databases were analyzed by 12 Portuguese experts in individual semi-structured interviews. The interviews aimed at identifying relevant indicators and important emerging issues in the Lisbon urban setting. The outputs from the interviews were validated by a two-round Web-Delphi process in which panelists (22 experts) from different areas of expertise expressed their views regarding the relevance of the indicators for the analysis of EH in urban settings. Seventeen indicators were validated in the Web-Delphi process. High participation achieved along this process supports the view that this participatory approach was useful for validation. Results from the adopted participatory approach point out gaps in the collection of noise and mobility indicators data and raise emerging issues on housing indicators that require further research. The results also suggest the need for local action to improve indicators and tools in order to help the monitorization of EH in urban contexts. The adopted participatory approach can be replicated for other Portuguese and European urban settings.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting Indicators to Monitor and Assess Environmental Health in a Portuguese Urban Setting: A Participatory Approach

Salgado

Vieira

Torres³

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, for when it is appropriate to interact with relevant food industry actors during the consultation and implementation phases, public health and policy professionals need better guidance for how to do so in a manner that minimises the risk and consequences of conflicts of interest. Our research highlights that such guidance is desperately sought by scientists who need to interact with food industry actors in research 13,14 and it makes sense that similar guidance is available for members states developing nutrition policy. The WHO tool to assess the risks associated with interacting with food companies 15 -and work we have conducted to build on this for researchers -are tools that can help contribute to this.…”

Section: So What Should Be Done?mentioning

confidence: 98%

Should Public Health and Policy Communities Interact With the Food Industry? It Depends on Context Comment on "Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool"

Cullerton

Adams

White

2020

Int J Health Policy Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The issue of public health and policy communities engaging with food sector companies has long caused tension and debate. Ralston and colleagues’ article ‘Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool’ further examines this issue. They found widespread food industry opposition, not just to the details of the World Health Organization (WHO) tool, but to the very idea of it. In this commentary we reflect on this finding and the arguments for and against interacting with the food industry during different stages of the policy process. While involving the food industry in certain aspects of the policy process without favouring their business goals may seem like an intractable problem, we believe there are opportunities for progress that do not compromise our values as public health professionals. We suggest three key steps to making progress.

show abstract

“…15,16 September 11-29, 2017, with respondents encouraged to provide written feedback on the draft tool and the associated introductory and discussion papers. Submissions were made by Member States, 6 UN agencies and other IGOs, 5 NGOs, 12 academic institutions, 7 and commercial sector actors 14 (see Table 1). All submissions were available in English except the Member State submission from Colombia and a submission from the Mexican Council of Consumer Product Industries (CONMéxico), which were both in Spanish and were reviewed by one of the authors (FSG) for the purposes of analysis.…”

Section: Key Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9][10][11] Debates regarding terms of engagement with the food industry in nutrition governance are particularly complex and contentious. 8,12,13 In 2012, the WHO's Comprehensive implementation plan on maternal, infant and young child nutrition called on Member States to "establish a dialogue with relevant national and international parties and form Implications for policy makers • Analysis of submissions across sectors highlighted significant divergence in how conflict of interest (COI) is understood, with important implications for nutrition governance and the roles of non-state actors. • Commercial sector actors saw COI as effectively addressed by requirements for individual disclosure, and opposed the tool as inhibiting partnership approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool

Ralston

Hill

Gomes

et al. 2020

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: With multi-stakeholder approaches central to efforts to address global health challenges, debates around conflict of interest (COI) are increasingly prominent. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently developed a proposed tool to support member states in preventing and managing COI in nutrition policy. We analysed responses to an online consultation to explore how actors from across sectors understand COI and the ways in which they use this concept to frame the terms of commercial sector engagement in health governance. Methods: Submissions from 44 Member States, international organisations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and commercial sector actors were coded using a thematic framework informed by framing theory. Respondents’ orientation to the tool aligned with two broad frames, ie, a ‘collaboration and partnership’ frame that endorsed multi-stakeholder approaches and a ‘restricted engagement’ frame that highlighted core tensions between public health and food industry actors. Results: Responses to the WHO tool reflected contrasting conceptualisations of COI and implications for health governance. While most Member States, NGOs, and academic institutions strongly supported the tool, commercial sector organisations depicted it as inappropriate, unworkable and incompatible with the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). Commercial sector respondents advanced a narrow, individual-level understanding of COI, seen as adequately addressed by existing mechanisms for disclosure, and viewed the WHO tool as unduly restricting scope for private sector engagement in nutrition policy. In contrast, health-focused NGOs and several Member States drew on a more expansive understanding of COI that recognised scope for wider tensions between public health goals and commercial interests and associated governance challenges. These submissions mostly welcomed the tool as an innovative approach to preventing and managing such conflicts, although some NGOs sought broader exclusion of corporate actors from policy engagement. Conclusion: Submissions on the WHO tool illustrate how contrasting positions on COI are central to understanding broader debates in nutrition policy and across global health governance. Effective health governance requires greater understanding of how COI can be conceptualised and managed amid high levels of contestation on policy engagement with commercial sector actors. This requires both ongoing innovation in governance tools and more extensive conceptual and empirical research.

show abstract

Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey

Cited by 11 publications

References 32 publications

Selecting Indicators to Monitor and Assess Environmental Health in a Portuguese Urban Setting: A Participatory Approach

Selecting Indicators to Monitor and Assess Environmental Health in a Portuguese Urban Setting: A Participatory Approach

Should Public Health and Policy Communities Interact With the Food Industry? It Depends on Context Comment on "Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool"

Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About