Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes. SETTING: Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom. PARTICIPANTS: 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped. RESULTS: Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area.

Australian Cancer Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Survey of Attitudes and Interactions.

PURPOSE: Interactions between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry may create conflicts of interest that can adversely affect patient care. We aimed to survey cancer physicians regarding their attitudes toward and interactions with industry. METHODS: We surveyed Australian cancer physicians between December 2020 and February 2021, questioning how often they interacted with industry and their attitudes toward this. We also assessed factors associated with accepting payments from industry and the amount received, and opinions on policies and industry influence. We used logistic and linear regression to examine links between attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: There were 116 responses (94 complete). Almost half (n = 53 of 115, 46.1%) felt that there was a positive relationship between cancer physicians and industry. Most (n = 79 of 104, 76.0%) interacted with industry at least once a month, and 67.7% (n = 63 of 93) had received nonresearch payments from industry previously, with a median value of 2,000 Australian dollars over 1 year. Most respondents believed that interactions could influence prescribing while simultaneously denying influence on their own prescribing (n = 66 of 94, 70.2%). Those who judged general sales representative interactions (odds ratio [OR] 9.37 [95% CI, 1.05 to 83.41], P = .045) or clinician sponsorship (OR 3.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.30], P = .049) to be more acceptable also met with sales representatives more frequently. Physicians were more likely to accept industry payments when they deemed sponsorship of clinicians for conferences (OR 10.55 [95% CI, 2.33 to 47.89], P = .002) or honoraria for advisory board membership more acceptable (OR 3.91 [95% CI, 1.04 to 14.74], P = .04) or when they had higher belief in industry influence over own prescribing (OR 25.51 [95% CI, 2.70 to 241.45], P = .005). CONCLUSION: Australian cancer physicians interact with industry frequently, and those who feel positive about these interactions are likely to do so more often. More research is needed to understand the motivations behind these interactions.

Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: The QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO's development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (Pi) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. Pi ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO's use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews. RESULTS: We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO's ratings are "very low", "low", "moderate", and "high". To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at "high" quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range Pi: 0.36-1.00) and rater teams (0.20-1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings. CONCLUSIONS: We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Industry payments to Australian medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available disclosures.

BACKGROUND: Payments to medical oncologists and clinical haematologists can negatively affect prescribing practice, but the extent of payments to these specialists is unknown in Australia. AIMS: To analyse the extent of payments from the pharmaceutical industry to Australian cancer physicians as reported during the first collated period of the Disclosure Australia website. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of payments made from November 2018 to April 2019, using a file downloaded from the Disclosure Australia website. We checked the names of listed medical practitioners against Medical Board of Australia records to assign specialties. The number of medical oncologists, clinical haematologists, other specialist physicians and non-specialist physician medical practitioners was calculated, along with the payments to each of these groups. RESULTS: A total of A$7 332 407 was paid to 2775 medical practitioners. Of these, 236 were medical oncologists, 189 were haematologists and 1145 were other specialist physicians. This represents 31.7% of Australian medical oncologists and 30.9% of Australian haematologists, compared with 11.7% of all other specialist physicians and 1.1% of all other non-specialist physician medical practitioners. Medical oncologists received significantly higher payments (median A$2131.26) than other specialist physicians (median A$1376.00, 2-tailed P = 0.004) and other medical practitioners (median A$709.00, 2-tailed P < 0.001), while haematologists received significantly higher payments (median A$1519.95) than other medical practitioners (2-tailed P < 0.001), but similar payments to other specialist physicians (2-tailed P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Australian cancer physicians receive payments at a higher proportional frequency and in greater dollar amounts than other specialist physicians and other medical practitioners in general.

RoB-SPEO: A tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. METHODS: Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each of its domain, rating Pi < 0.4 as poor, 0.4 ≤ Pi ≥ 0.8 as substantial and Pi > 0.80 as almost perfect agreement. RESULTS: Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of Pi for these domains: 0.51-0.80), but poor agreement for two domains (i.e. Pi of 0.31 and 0.33 for biases due to incomplete exposure data and in selection of participants into the study, respectively). Limitations of RoB-SPEO include that it has not yet been fully performance-tested. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?

BACKGROUND: The sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health. METHODS: We selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest. RESULTS: Scientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting "causation" criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers' access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas. CONCLUSIONS: Well-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public's health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.

Philip Morris International-funded 'Foundation for a Smoke-Free World': analysing its claims of independence.

The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World was launched in September 2017 with an announced 12-year funding commitment of $1 billion from Philip Morris International (PMI). The Foundation claims that its governing documents (certificate of incorporation, bylaws and a pledge agreement) ensure that it has an independent research agenda and stringent protections from conflicts of interest. We analysed the text of these governing documents. Their provisions have multiple loopholes, particularly regarding conflicts of interest. Further, these documents cannot substitute for other important documentation such as information about PMI's internal business case for investing $1 billion in the Foundation, an unwaivable conflict of interest policy, annual disclosure statements, copies of pre-Foundation establishment correspondence between key individuals, all signed contracts or salary information, none of which, as of July 2018, the Foundation has made publicly available. Even if these were released, however, it is problematic that the Foundation's fundamental purpose was decided on and its leader selected following a tobacco company-paid, privately negotiated arrangement with the Foundation's president. It cannot be regarded as independent.

A cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse patterns and characteristics of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of events for Australian health professionals and to understand the implications of recent changes in transparency provisions that no longer require reporting of payments for food and beverages. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 301 publicly available company transparency reports downloaded from the website of Medicines Australia, the pharmaceutical industry trade association, covering the period from October 2011 to September 2015. RESULTS: Forty-two companies sponsored 116 845 events for health professionals, on average 608 per week with 30 attendees per event. Events typically included a broad range of health professionals: 82.0% included medical doctors, including specialists and primary care doctors, and 38.3% trainees. Oncology, surgery and endocrinology were the most frequent clinical areas of focus. Most events (64.2%) were held in a clinical setting. The median cost per event was $A263 (IQR $A153-1195) and over 90% included food and beverages. CONCLUSIONS: Over this 4-year period, industry-sponsored events were widespread and pharmaceutical companies maintained a high frequency of contact with health professionals. Most events were held in clinical settings, suggesting a pervasive commercial presence in everyday clinical practice. Food and beverages, known to be associated with changes to prescribing practice, were almost always provided. New Australian transparency provisions explicitly exclude meals from the reporting requirements; thus, a large proportion of potentially influential payments from pharmaceutical companies to health professionals will disappear from public view.

Challenges to generating evidence-informed policy and the role of systematic reviews and (perceived) conflicts of interest.

BACKGROUND: Multiple efforts to generate evidence-informed policy have attempted to teach policymakers how to understand and apply scientific research findings in their decision-making. These efforts have had limited success, because policymakers generally do not understand scientific methods. OBJECTIVE: We piloted efforts to teach policy intermediaries - specifically consumer advocacy groups - how to understand and apply health research, anticipating that they might offer such evidence to policymakers in more accessible forms. DESIGN: Four workshops focusing on research design and methods were conducted with consumer advocacy groups in 2010. We coded and analyzed participant responses regarding their confidence in interpreting research findings and assessments of research credibility, and the extent to which their knowledge about research findings changed after completing the workshops. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that although participants expressed strong interest in understanding scientific research, their ability to develop confidence about scientific research methods was limited. However, like policymakers, consumer advocacy group members intuited that financial conflicts of interest could compromise scientific findings, although they initially underestimated their effects on research results. After training, consumer advocates also saw the value of using systematic reviews rather than individual studies. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that although advocates may not feel confident in their understanding of scientific research, they found it easier to understand the value of systematic reviews and the risks of conflicts of interest than other statistical concepts and terminology. Focusing on making these types of information available may offer a useful way for policymakers and consumer advocates to interpret the validity of policy-relevant scientific research.

Term limits and the tobacco industry.

In the 1990s several American states passed term limits on legislators with the stated intention of reducing the influence of wealthy industries on career legislators. Although term limits in the United States do not have a direct relationship to public health, the tobacco industry anticipated that term limits could have indirect effects by either limiting or expanding industry influence. We detail the strategy of the tobacco industry in the wake of term limits using internal tobacco company documents and a database of campaign contributions made to legislators in term limited states between 1988 and 2002. Despite some expectations that term limits would limit tobacco industry access to state legislators, term limits appear to have had the opposite effect.

Tobacco industry denormalisation as a tobacco control intervention: a review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a review of research examining the effects of tobacco industry denormalisation (TID) on smoking-related and attitude-related outcomes. METHODS: The authors searched Pubmed and Scopus databases for articles published through December 2010 (see figure 1). We included all peer-reviewed TID studies we could locate that measured smoking-related outcomes and attitudes toward the tobacco industry. Exclusion criteria included: non-English language, focus on tobacco use rather than TID, perceived ad efficacy as sole outcome, complex program interventions without a separately analysable TID component and non peer-reviewed literature. We analysed the literature qualitatively and summarised findings by outcome measured. RESULTS: After excluding articles not meeting the search criteria, the authors reviewed 60 studies examining TID and 9 smoking-related outcomes, including smoking prevalence, smoking initiation, intention to smoke and intention to quit. The authors also reviewed studies of attitudes towards the tobacco industry and its regulation. The majority of studies suggest that TID is effective in reducing smoking prevalence and initiation and increasing intentions to quit. Evidence is mixed for some other outcomes, but some of the divergent findings may be explained by study designs. CONCLUSIONS: A robust body of evidence suggests that TID is an effective tobacco control intervention at the population level that has a clear exposure-response effect. TID may also contribute to other tobacco control outcomes not explored in this review (including efforts to 'directly erode industry power'), and thus may enhance public support and political will for structural reforms to end the tobacco epidemic.

Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments.

CONTEXT: Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) from pharmaceutical industry study funding and author-industry financial relationships is sometimes recommended for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in biomedical journals. Authors of meta-analyses, however, are not required to report COIs disclosed in original reports of included RCTs. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals report COIs disclosed in included RCTs. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We selected the 3 most recent meta-analyses of patented pharmacological treatments published January 2009 through October 2009 in each general medicine journal with an impact factor of at least 10; in high-impact journals in each of the 5 specialty medicine areas with the greatest 2008 global therapeutic sales (oncology, cardiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology, and gastroenterology); and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently extracted data on disclosed study funding, author-industry financial ties, and author employment from each meta-analysis, from RCTs included in each meta-analysis, and on whether meta-analyses reported disclosed COIs of included RCTs. RESULTS: Of 29 meta-analyses reviewed, which included 509 RCTs, only 2 meta-analyses (7%) reported RCT funding sources; and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment by the pharmaceutical industry. Of 318 meta-analyzed RCTs that reported funding sources, 219 (69%) were industry funded; and 91 of 132 (69%) that reported author financial disclosures had 1 or more authors with pharmaceutical industry financial ties. In 7 of the 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 100% of included RCTs had at least 1 form of disclosed COI (pharmaceutical industry funding, author-industry financial ties, or employment), yet only 1 of these 7 meta-analyses reported RCT funding sources, and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment. CONCLUSION: Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author COIs for the included RCTs were only rarely reported.

Identifying barriers to the availability and use of Magnesium Sulphate Injection in resource poor countries: a case study in Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are serious complications of pregnancy and major causes of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. According to systematic reviews and WHO guidelines magnesium sulphate injection (MgSO4) should be the first -line treatment for severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Studies have shown that this safe and effective medicine is unavailable and underutilized in many resource poor countries. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to the availability and use of MgSO4 in the Zambian Public Health System. METHODS: A 'fishbone' (Ishikawa) diagram listing probable facilitators to the availability and use of MgSO4 identified from the literature was used to develop an assessment tool. Barriers to availability and use of MgSO4 were assessed at the regulatory/government, supply, procurement, distribution, health facility and health professional levels. The assessment was completed during August 2008 using archival data, and observations at a pragmatic sample of health facilities providing obstetric services in Lusaka District, Zambia. RESULTS: The major barrier to the availability of MgSO4 within the public health system in Zambia was lack of procurement by the Ministry of Health. Other barriers identified included a lack of demand by health professionals at the health centre level and a lack of in-service training in the use of MgSO4. Where there was demand by obstetricians, magnesium sulphate injection was being procured from the private sector by the hospital pharmacy despite not being registered and licensed for use for the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia by the national Pharmaceutical Regulatory Authority. CONCLUSIONS: The case study in Zambia highlights the complexities that underlie making essential medicines available and used appropriately. The fishbone diagram is a useful theoretical framework for illustrating the complexity of translating research findings into clinical practice. A better understanding of the supply system and of the pattern of demand for MgSO4 in Zambia should enable policy makers and stakeholders to develop and implement appropriate interventions to improve the availability and use of MgSO4.

"A delicate diplomatic situation": tobacco industry efforts to gain control of the Framingham Study.

BACKGROUND: The Framingham Heart Study (henceforth Framingham) is among the gold standards for epidemiological research. Being a prospective cohort study of 5,000+ men and women, it provided early findings about the causes of coronary heart disease (CHD), following a cohort over the course of 24 years. After US government funding ended, the tobacco industry funded Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) provided continued funding for analyses related to smoking. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand the tobacco industry's motivation and activities in funding Framingham. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed previously undisclosed tobacco industry documents, conducting iterative searches of the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/), and assembled a historical case study. RESULTS: CTR funded Framingham to obtain full access to Framingham data. CTR planned for long-time industry consultant Carl Seltzer to reanalyze them to suggest that tobacco-related morbidity and mortality primarily resulted from "constitutional" factors, such as age or ethnicity. Once data were obtained, CTR terminated funding for the Framingham principal investigator, who disagreed with Seltzer. Seltzer's critical analyses of subsequently published work by the Framingham team created confusion about the association between CHD and cigarette smoking. CONCLUSION: Researchers accepting tobacco industry funding risk losing control of data, analysis, and publication.

The politics of smoking in federal buildings: an executive order case study.

Executive orders are important presidential tools for health policymaking that are subject to less public scrutiny than are legislation and regulatory rulemaking. President Bill Clinton banned smoking in federal government buildings by executive order in 1997, after the administration of George H. W. Bush had twice considered and abandoned a similar policy. The 1991 and 1993 Bush proposals drew objections from agency heads and labor unions, many coordinated by the tobacco industry. We analyzed internal tobacco industry documents and found that the industry engaged in extensive executive branch lobbying and other political activity surrounding the Clinton smoking ban. Whereas some level of stakeholder politics might have been expected, this policy also featured jockeying among various agencies and the participation of organized labor.

Evidence and argument in policymaking: development of workplace smoking legislation.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify factors that affect the passage of public health legislation by examining the use of arguments, particularly arguments presenting research evidence, in legislative debates regarding workplace smoking restrictions. METHODS: We conducted a case-study based content analysis of legislative materials used in the development of six state workplace smoking laws, including written and spoken testimony and the text of proposed and passed bills and amendments. We coded testimony given before legislators for arguments used, and identified the institutional affiliations of presenters and their position on the legislation. We compared patterns in the arguments made in testimony to the relative strength of each state's final legislation. RESULTS: Greater discussion of scientific evidence within testimony given was associated with the passage of workplace smoking legislation that provided greater protection for public health, regardless of whether supporters outnumbered opponents or vice versa. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that an emphasis on scientific discourse, relative to other arguments made in legislative testimony, might help produce political outcomes that favor public health.

Moral disengagement in the corporate world.

We analyze mechanisms of moral disengagement used to eliminate moral consequences by industries whose products or production practices are harmful to human health. Moral disengagement removes the restraint of self-censure from harmful practices. Moral self-sanctions can be selectively disengaged from harmful activities by investing them with socially worthy purposes, sanitizing and exonerating them, displacing and diffusing responsibility, minimizing or disputing harmful consequences, making advantageous comparisons, and disparaging and blaming critics and victims. Internal industry documents and public statements related to the research activities of these industries were coded for modes of moral disengagement by the tobacco, lead, vinyl chloride (VC), and silicosis-producing industries. All but one of the modes of moral disengagement were used by each of these industries. We present possible safeguards designed to protect the integrity of research.

Implementation of a workplace smoking ban in bars: the limits of local discretion.

BACKGROUND: In January 1998, the California state legislature extended a workplace smoking ban to bars. The purpose of this study was to explore the conditions that facilitate or hinder compliance with a smoking ban in bars. METHODS: We studied the implementation of the smoking ban in bars by interviewing three sets of policy participants: bar employers responsible for complying with the law; local government officials responsible for enforcing the law; and tobacco control activists who facilitated implementation. We transcribed the interviews and did a qualitative analysis of the text. RESULTS: The conditions that facilitated bar owners' compliance with a smoking ban in bars included: if the cost to comply was minimal; if the bars with which they were in competition were in compliance with the smoking ban; and if there was authoritative, consistent, coordinated, and uniform enforcement. Conversely, the conditions that hindered compliance included: if the law had minimal sanctions; if competing bars in the area allowed smoking; and if enforcement was delayed or inadequate. CONCLUSION: Many local enforcers wished to forfeit their local discretion and believed the workplace smoking ban in bars would be best implemented by a state agency. The potential implication of this study is that, given the complex nature of local politics, smoking bans in bars are best implemented at a broader provincial or national level.

Tobacco use among individuals with schizophrenia: what role has the tobacco industry played?

Rates of tobacco use among individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia have been estimated as high as 80%. A variety of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the high rate of tobacco use among this vulnerable group. This study examined the tobacco industry's efforts to establish and promulgate beliefs about schizophrenic individuals' need to smoke and the hazards of quitting. The current study analyzed previously secret tobacco industry documents. The initial search was conducted during January-July 2005 in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. The search yielded 280 records dating from 1955 to 2004. Documents indicate the tobacco industry monitored or directly funded research supporting the idea that individuals with schizophrenia were less susceptible to the harms of tobacco and that they needed tobacco as self-medication. The tobacco industry promoted smoking in psychiatric settings by providing cigarettes and supporting efforts to block hospital smoking bans. The tobacco industry engaged in a variety of direct and indirect efforts that likely contributed to the slowed decline in smoking prevalence in schizophrenia via slowing nicotine dependence treatment development for this population and slowing the rate of policy implementation vis-à-vis smoking bans on psychiatric units.