Cargando…

Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature

BACKGROUND: There has been remarkable tobacco control progress in many places around the globe. Tobacco industry interference (TII) has been identified as the most significant barrier to further implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). Civil...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matthes, Britta K., Kumar, Praveen, Dance, Sarah, Hird, Tom, Carriedo Lutzenkirchen, Angela, Gilmore, Anna B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37344818
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00936-7
_version_ 1785061760979435520
author Matthes, Britta K.
Kumar, Praveen
Dance, Sarah
Hird, Tom
Carriedo Lutzenkirchen, Angela
Gilmore, Anna B.
author_facet Matthes, Britta K.
Kumar, Praveen
Dance, Sarah
Hird, Tom
Carriedo Lutzenkirchen, Angela
Gilmore, Anna B.
author_sort Matthes, Britta K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There has been remarkable tobacco control progress in many places around the globe. Tobacco industry interference (TII) has been identified as the most significant barrier to further implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). Civil society has been recognised as a key actor in countering TII. While TII has been extensively studied for several decades now, there is little research that focuses on counteractions to limit it and their effectiveness to do so. This scoping review seeks to map the peer-reviewed literature on civil society’s activities of countering TII in policymaking to identify common counterstrategies and assess their effectiveness. METHODS: Data sources: We searched Embase, IBSS, JSTOR, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science using the following terms: (“Tobacco industry” OR “Tobacco compan*”) AND. (“corporate political activity” OR “CPA” OR “lobbying” OR “interference”) AND (“advoca*” OR “counter*” OR “activi*”), without time or language restrictions. Study selection: Our selection criteria included peer-reviewed studies that were written in English, German, or Spanish that drew on primary data and/or legal and policy documents and reported at least one specific example of civil society members or organisations countering tobacco industry action-based strategies. Data extraction: Advocates’ counterstrategies were analysed inductively and countered industry strategies were analysed using the Policy Dystopia Model (PDM). Perceptions of effectiveness of countering attempts were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: We found five common counterstrategies among 30 included papers covering five WHO regions; 1. Exposing industry conduct and false claims; 2. Accessing decision-makers; 3. Generating and using evidence; 4. Filing a complaint or taking legal action; 5. Mobilising coalition and potential supporters. These counterstrategies were used to work against a wide range of industry strategies, which are captured by five action-based strategies described in the PDM (Coalition Management, Information Management, Direct Access and Influence, Litigation, Reputation Management). While some studies reported the outcome of the countering activities, their impact remained largely underexplored. CONCLUSION: The review shows that peer-reviewed literature documenting how civil society actors counter TII is scarce. It suggests that advocates employ a range of strategies to counter TII in its different forms and use them flexibly. More work is needed to better understand the effects of their actions. This could stimulate discussions about, and facilitate learning from, past experiences and help to further enhance advocates’ capacity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12992-023-00936-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10286487
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102864872023-06-23 Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature Matthes, Britta K. Kumar, Praveen Dance, Sarah Hird, Tom Carriedo Lutzenkirchen, Angela Gilmore, Anna B. Global Health Research BACKGROUND: There has been remarkable tobacco control progress in many places around the globe. Tobacco industry interference (TII) has been identified as the most significant barrier to further implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). Civil society has been recognised as a key actor in countering TII. While TII has been extensively studied for several decades now, there is little research that focuses on counteractions to limit it and their effectiveness to do so. This scoping review seeks to map the peer-reviewed literature on civil society’s activities of countering TII in policymaking to identify common counterstrategies and assess their effectiveness. METHODS: Data sources: We searched Embase, IBSS, JSTOR, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science using the following terms: (“Tobacco industry” OR “Tobacco compan*”) AND. (“corporate political activity” OR “CPA” OR “lobbying” OR “interference”) AND (“advoca*” OR “counter*” OR “activi*”), without time or language restrictions. Study selection: Our selection criteria included peer-reviewed studies that were written in English, German, or Spanish that drew on primary data and/or legal and policy documents and reported at least one specific example of civil society members or organisations countering tobacco industry action-based strategies. Data extraction: Advocates’ counterstrategies were analysed inductively and countered industry strategies were analysed using the Policy Dystopia Model (PDM). Perceptions of effectiveness of countering attempts were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: We found five common counterstrategies among 30 included papers covering five WHO regions; 1. Exposing industry conduct and false claims; 2. Accessing decision-makers; 3. Generating and using evidence; 4. Filing a complaint or taking legal action; 5. Mobilising coalition and potential supporters. These counterstrategies were used to work against a wide range of industry strategies, which are captured by five action-based strategies described in the PDM (Coalition Management, Information Management, Direct Access and Influence, Litigation, Reputation Management). While some studies reported the outcome of the countering activities, their impact remained largely underexplored. CONCLUSION: The review shows that peer-reviewed literature documenting how civil society actors counter TII is scarce. It suggests that advocates employ a range of strategies to counter TII in its different forms and use them flexibly. More work is needed to better understand the effects of their actions. This could stimulate discussions about, and facilitate learning from, past experiences and help to further enhance advocates’ capacity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12992-023-00936-7. BioMed Central 2023-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10286487/ /pubmed/37344818 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00936-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Matthes, Britta K.
Kumar, Praveen
Dance, Sarah
Hird, Tom
Carriedo Lutzenkirchen, Angela
Gilmore, Anna B.
Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature
title Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature
title_full Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature
title_fullStr Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature
title_full_unstemmed Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature
title_short Advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature
title_sort advocacy counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference in policymaking: a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37344818
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00936-7
work_keys_str_mv AT matthesbrittak advocacycounterstrategiestotobaccoindustryinterferenceinpolicymakingascopingreviewofpeerreviewedliterature
AT kumarpraveen advocacycounterstrategiestotobaccoindustryinterferenceinpolicymakingascopingreviewofpeerreviewedliterature
AT dancesarah advocacycounterstrategiestotobaccoindustryinterferenceinpolicymakingascopingreviewofpeerreviewedliterature
AT hirdtom advocacycounterstrategiestotobaccoindustryinterferenceinpolicymakingascopingreviewofpeerreviewedliterature
AT carriedolutzenkirchenangela advocacycounterstrategiestotobaccoindustryinterferenceinpolicymakingascopingreviewofpeerreviewedliterature
AT gilmoreannab advocacycounterstrategiestotobaccoindustryinterferenceinpolicymakingascopingreviewofpeerreviewedliterature