The WHO Foundation in global health governance: Depoliticizing corporate philanthropy.

The creation of the WHO Foundation during the COVID-19 pandemic represents a significant institutional development in the politics of financing the World Health Organization (WHO). In the context of longstanding acute financial pressures, the objective of the WHO Foundation is to widen WHO's resource base by attracting philanthropic donations from the commercial sector. In placing funding decisions 'at one remove' from WHO, the stated expectation is that the WHO Foundation will act as an intermediary, insulating the WHO from potential conflicts of interest and reputational risk through a combination of strategic distance from WHO and proximity with its norms and rules of engagement with non-state actors. Yet, whether this model has translated into practice remains understudied. In this article, we focus on emerging institutional practices within the WHO Foundation, highlighting a drift from its stated governance model. Based on analysis of WHO Foundation documents, we demonstrate how due diligence and transparency practices within the Foundation have been redesigned in ways that contradict or subvert its claims to applying alignment with WHO's governance norms, notably relating to its engagement with health harming industries such as alcohol and petrochemical companies. While this situation may seem paradoxical, we argue that, in placing funding decisions 'at one remove' from the formal institutions and structures of WHO, the creation of the Foundation has served to displace this issue to a more secluded arena where drifts in practice are less exposed to political oversight and scrutiny. Focusing on the discursive aspects of this process of depoliticisation, we contend that the Foundation has strategically managed 'fictional expectations' of accountable and transparent governance in order to mitigate concerns about its mandate and functions. This assessment provides new and important insights into the depoliticizing functions of the WHO Foundation and the significant implications this may have for global health governance.

Factors influencing public health engagement in alcohol licensing in England and Scotland including legal and structural differences: comparative interview analysis.

Background: Greater availability of alcohol is associated with higher consumption and harms. The legal systems, by which premises are licensed to sell alcohol in England and Scotland, differ in several ways. The 'Exploring the impact of alcohol licensing in England and Scotland' study measured public health team activity regarding alcohol licensing from 2012 to 2019 and identified seven differences between England and Scotland in the timing and type of activities undertaken. Objectives: To qualitatively describe the seven previously identified differences between Scotland and England in public health approaches to alcohol licensing, and to examine, from the perspective of public health professionals, what factors may explain these differences. Methods: Ninety-four interviews were conducted with 52 professionals from 14 English and 6 Scottish public health teams selected for diversity who had been actively engaging with alcohol licensing. Interviews focused primarily on the nature of their engagement (n = 66) and their rationale for the approaches taken (n = 28). Interview data were analysed thematically using NVivo. Findings were constructed by discussion across the research team, to describe and explain the differences in practice found. Findings: Diverse legal, practical and other factors appeared to explain the seven differences. (1) Earlier engagement in licensing by Scottish public health teams in 2012-3 may have arisen from differences in the timing of legislative changes giving public health a statutory role and support from Alcohol Focus Scotland. (2) Public Health England provided significant support from 2014 in England, contributing to an increase in activity from that point. (3) Renewals of statements of licensing policy were required more frequently in Scotland and at the same time for all Licensing Boards, probably explaining greater focus on policy in Scotland. (4) Organisational structures in Scotland, with public health stakeholders spread across several organisations, likely explained greater involvement of senior leaders there. (5) Without a public health objective for licensing, English public health teams felt less confident about making objections to licence applications without other stakeholders such as the police, and instead commonly negotiated conditions on licences with applicants. In contrast, Scottish public health teams felt any direct contact with applicants was inappropriate due to conflicts of interest. (6) With the public health objective in Scotland, public health teams there were more active in making independent objections to licence applications. Further in Scotland, licensing committee meetings are held to consider all new applications regardless of whether objections have been submitted; unlike in England where there was a greater incentive to resolve objections, because then a meeting was not required. (7) Finally, Scottish public health teams involved the public more in licensing process, partly because of statutory licensing forums there. Conclusions: The alcohol premises licensing systems in England and Scotland differ in important ways including and beyond the lack of a public health objective for licensing in England. These and other differences, including support of national and local bodies, have shaped opportunities for, and the nature of, public health engagement. Further research could examine the relative success of the approaches taken by public health teams and how temporary increases in availability are handled in the two licensing systems. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Reseacrh programme as award number 15/129/11.

When alcohol becomes more widely available, harms tend to increase. In England and Scotland, this availability is controlled by local councils. They 'licence' shops, bars and other venues to allow them to sell alcohol. Local health teams, including doctors, often advise councils on licensing. In earlier work, we found seven differences in what Scottish and English health teams do on licensing. In this study, we explore these seven differences and why they came about. To do this, we interviewed 94 professionals working in public health across both countries. Scottish health teams got involved in licensing earlier than in England. This was partly because of when certain laws changed. Also, they were helped earlier by national organisations that try to reduce harm from alcohol. Scottish teams were more involved in local policies on licensing. This was probably because these policies changed more often in the Scottish system. Scottish teams involved the public more. This was partly because Scottish councils must set up 'local licensing forums'. Scottish teams also objected more often to licence applications. They generally felt that they could be more actively involved, because of a law in Scotland that says licensing must protect public health. This law does not apply in England. In England, health teams were more likely to talk to businesses that wanted licences. They were less likely to try to block applications. When they agreed changes to applications with businesses instead of objecting, fewer formal licensing meetings were needed. This was not the case in Scotland. Also, Scottish teams did not feel it was okay for them to talk to businesses. In summary, there are important differences in licensing law between Scotland and England. These matter for how health teams in the two countries engage with local councils, businesses and the public on licensing matters.

Public health engagement in alcohol licensing in England and Scotland: the ExILEnS mixed-method, natural experiment evaluation.

Background: International systematic reviews suggest an association between alcohol availability and increased alcohol-related harms. Alcohol availability is regulated through separate locally administered licensing systems in England and Scotland, in which local public health teams have a statutory role. The system in Scotland includes a public health objective for licensing. Public health teams engage to varying degrees in licensing matters but no previous study has sought to objectively characterise and measure their activity, examine their effectiveness, or compare practices between Scotland and England. Aim: To critically assess the impact and mechanisms of impact of public health team engagement in alcohol premises licensing on alcohol-related harms in England and Scotland. Methods: We recruited 39 diverse public health teams in England (n = 27) and Scotland (n = 12). Public health teams more active in licensing were recruited first and then matched to lower-activity public health teams. Using structured interviews (n = 66), documentation analysis, and expert consultation, we developed and applied the Public Health Engagement In Alcohol Licensing (PHIAL) measure to quantify six-monthly activity levels from 2012 to 2019. Time series of PHIAL scores, and health and crime outcomes for each area, were analysed using multivariable negative binomial mixed-effects models to assess correlations between outcome and exposure, with 18-month average PHIAL score as the primary exposure metric. In-depth interviews (n = 53) and a workshop (n = 10) explored public health team approaches and potential mechanisms of impact of alcohol availability interventions with public health team members and licensing stakeholders (local authority licensing officers, managers and lawyers/clerks, police staff with a licensing remit, local elected representatives). Findings: Nineteen public health team activity types were assessed in six categories: (1) staffing; (2) reviewing and (3) responding to licence applications; (4) data usage; (5) influencing licensing stakeholders/policy; and (6) public involvement. Usage and intensity of activities and overall approaches varied within and between areas over time, including between Scotland and England. The latter variation could be explained by legal, structural and philosophical differences, including Scotland's public health objective. This objective was felt to legitimise public health considerations and the use of public health data within licensing. Quantitative analysis showed no clear evidence of association between level of public health team activity and the health or crime outcomes examined, using the primary exposure or other metrics (neither change in, nor cumulative, PHIAL scores). Qualitative data suggested that public health team input was valued by many licensing stakeholders, and that alcohol availability may lead to harms by affecting the accessibility, visibility and norms of alcohol consumption, but that the licensing systems have limited power to act in the interests of public health. Conclusions: This study provides no evidence that public health team engagement in local licensing matters was associated with measurable downstream reductions in crime or health harms, in the short term, or over a 7-year follow-up period. The extensive qualitative data suggest that public health team engagement is valued and appears to be slowly reorienting the licensing system to better address health (and other) harms, especially in Scotland, but this will take time. A rise in home drinking, alcohol deliveries, and the inherent inability of the licensing system to reduce - or in the case of online sales, to contain - availability, may explain the null findings and will continue to limit the potential of these licensing systems to address alcohol-related harms. Future work: Further analysis could consider the relative success of different public health team approaches in terms of changing alcohol availability and retailing. A key gap relates to the nature and impact of online availability on alcohol consumption, harms and inequalities, alongside development and study of relevant policy options. A national approach to licensing data and oversight would greatly facilitate future studies and public health input to licensing. Limitations: Our interview data and therefore PHIAL scores may be limited by recall bias where documentary evidence of public health activity was not available, and by possible variability in grading of such activity, though steps were taken to minimise both. The analyses would have benefited from additional data on licensing policies and environmental changes that might have affected availability or harms in the study areas. Study registration: The study was registered with the Research Registry (researchregistry6162) on 26 October 2020. The study protocol was published in BMC Medical Research Methodology on 6 November 2018. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number 15/129/11.

Research finds that when alcohol is more easily available, because more places sell alcohol or have longer opening hours, people tend to drink more and harms tend to increase. In England and Scotland, 'Licensing Committees' in local governments have power over which venues are given a licence to sell alcohol legally. They make decisions based on local policy and on licensing goals set out in law. Licensing laws are slightly different in both nations, and health representatives are often involved in trying to influence local licensing decisions and policies, to reduce alcohol-related harms. We aimed to find out what public health teams have done to influence alcohol licensing and whether their actions have affected alcohol-related harms. We recruited 39 public health teams (Scotland: 12; England: 27) and measured how active they were on licensing matters. We gathered detailed information (from interviews and papers) about their actions from 2012 to 2019, and asked them and others involved in licensing (including police, and local authority licensing teams and lawyers) about how their efforts might make a difference to harms. We gathered local data on alcohol-related health harms and crimes during 2009­19. We analysed whether any changes in these harms were related to the level of public health team activity, and explored differences between Scotland and England. Public health teams across Scotland and England took varied approaches to engaging in alcohol licensing, and their work was often welcomed by others working in the licensing system. However, we found no clear relationship between the level of licensing-related activity that public health teams engaged in and the levels of alcohol-related health harms or crime. This may be because their actions make only a modest difference to licensing decisions, or because it may take longer than the study period for them to have a sizeable impact. Reducing alcohol-related harms through licensing may require strengthening national licensing laws and the powers of public health teams, including by addressing online sales and home deliveries.

Agnogenic practices and corporate political strategy: the legitimation of UK gambling industry-funded youth education programmes.

Agnogenic practices-designed to create ignorance or doubt-are well-established strategies employed by health-harming industries (HHI). However, little is known about their use by industry-funded organizations delivering youth education programmes. We applied a previously published framework of corporate agnogenic practices to analyse how these organizations used them in three UK gambling industry-funded youth education programmes. Evidential strategies adopted previously by other HHI are prominent in the programmes' practitioner-facing materials, evaluation design and reporting and in public statements about the programmes. We show how agnogenic practices are employed to portray these youth education programmes as 'evidence-based' and 'evaluation-led'. These practices distort the already limited evidence on these educational initiatives while legitimizing industry-favourable policies, which prioritize commercial interests over public health. Given the similarities in political strategies adopted by different industries, these findings are relevant to research and policy on other HHI.

Is the commercial determinants conversation confined to the health sciences? Potentially, and that's a problem.

The commercial determinants of health (CDoH) are attracting increased interest and are of great importance when discussing how trade affects health. Through a citation analysis of recent foundational CDoH documents (a Lancet paper series and an Oxford University textbook), we find that fully 71% of all citations reference the health sciences. The health sciences may be well suited to documenting the specific pathways of how commercial (by)products and practices harm human health. However, to operationalize upstream solutions for mitigating these harms, our citation analysis suggests that the field can engage political scientists, economists, sociologists, the trade law and business, as well as advocates in civil society and journalism, more so than it currently does. With CDoH explicitly referring to the interaction between commerce and health, CDoH researchers might be uniquely positioned to get health on the agenda of others, which requires that CDoH methods, datasets, evidence reviews, and proposed interventions are drawn from the widest possible range of sources.

Under the influence: system-level effects of alcohol industry-funded health information organizations.

There is now an established body of evidence that the alcohol industry seeks to obstruct public health policies that could affect the availability, affordability or marketing of alcohol. In parallel, the alcohol industry is active in funding corporate social responsibility initiatives, with a particular focus on 'responsible drinking' campaigns, often facilitated by national-level charities established and/or funded by the alcohol industry and associated organizations. While evidence continues to grow regarding biases in the content produced by such health information organizations, they remain active in partnerships with government health departments on national health promotion campaigns and provide a range of health-related information to the public, community organizations and schools. To understand the implications of such access for policymakers, researchers and the public, there is a need to consider the wider, system-level influences of such organizations and their place in wider alcohol industry strategies. In this article, we describe evolving evidence of the direct and indirect strategic effects of such organizations and demonstrate how they serve key roles in the alcohol industry through their existence, content, partnerships and public profiles. We end by considering the implications for how we conceptualize charities established or funded (entirely or partly) by harmful commodity industries, and to what extent current conflicts of interest guidelines are sufficiently effective.

The Pitfalls of Ascribing Moral Agency to Corporations: Public Obligation and Political and Social Contexts in the Commercial Determinants of Health.

Policy Points Government and civil society should be held more accountable for creating food and beverage regulatory policies rather than assigning moral agency to the food and beverage industry. Nutrition policymaking institutions should ensure civil society's ability to design regulatory policy. Government policymaking institutions should be isolated from industry interference.

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

BACKGROUND: The 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/RESULTS: CODES 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). CONCLUSIONS: This 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.

Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed. METHODS: Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy. RESULTS: We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced "alternative" and "natural" treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health.

Conceptualising the commercial determinants of suicide: broadening the lens on suicide and self-harm prevention.

Suicide is preventable, yet, in many settings, robust suicide prevention strategies have not been implemented. Although a commercial determinants of health lens is increasingly being applied to industries important to the field of suicide prevention, the interplay between the vested interests of commercial actors and suicide has received little attention. There is a need to shift attention to the causes of the causes, directing more focus to the ways that commercial determinants influence suicide and shape suicide prevention strategies. Such a shift in perspective, with an evidence base and precedents to draw upon, has transformative potential for research and policy agendas dedicated to understanding and addressing upstream modifiable determinants of suicide and self-harm. We propose a framework intended to help guide efforts to conceptualise, research, and address the commercial determinants of suicide and their inequitable distribution. We hope these ideas and lines of inquiry help to catalyse connections between disciplines and open further debate and discussion as to how to take such an agenda forward.

Global Health Equity Requires Global Equity.

Many global health challenges are characterized by the inequitable patterning of their health and economic consequences, which are etched along the lines of pre-existing inequalities in resources, power, and opportunity. These links require us to reconsider how we define global health equity, and what we consider as most consequential in its pursuit. In this article, we discuss the extent to which improving underlying global equity is an essential prerequisite to global health equity. We conclude that if we are to improve global health equity, there is a need to focus more on foundational-rather than proximal-causes of ill health and propose ways in which this can be achieved.

Measuring How Public Health Stakeholders Seek to Influence Alcohol Premises Licensing in England and Scotland: The Public Health Engagement In Alcohol Licensing (PHIAL) Measure.

OBJECTIVE: In the United Kingdom, some public health teams (PHTs) routinely engage with local alcohol premises licensing systems, through which licenses to sell alcohol are granted. We aimed to categorize PHT efforts and to develop and apply a measure of their efforts over time. METHOD: Preliminary categories of PHT activity were developed based on prior literature and were used to guide data collection with PHTs in 39 local government areas (27 in England; 12 in Scotland), sampled purposively. Relevant activity from April 2012 to March 2019 was identified through structured interviews (N = 62), documentation analysis, and follow-up checks, and a grading system was developed. The measure was refined based on expert consultation and used to grade relevant PHT activity for the 39 areas in 6-month periods. RESULTS: The Public Health engagement In Alcohol Licensing (PHIAL) Measure includes 19 activities in six categories: (a) staffing; (b) reviewing license applications; (c) responding to license applications; (d) data usage; (e) influencing licensing stakeholders or policy; and (f) public involvement. PHIAL scores for each area demonstrate fluctuation in type and level of activity between and within areas over time. Participating PHTs in Scotland were more active on average, particularly on senior leadership, policy development, and working with the public. In England, activity to influence license applications before decision was more common, and a clear increase in activity is apparent from 2014 onward. CONCLUSIONS: The novel PHIAL Measure successfully assessed diverse and fluctuating PHT engagement in alcohol licensing systems over time and will have practice, policy, and research applications.

How Do Industry-Funded Alcohol and Gambling Conferences Frame the Issues? An Analysis of Conference Agendas.

OBJECTIVE: There is a growing evidence base that unhealthy commodity industries (including alcohol and gambling) promote industry-favorable framings of product harms and solutions. These framings adopt a focus on the individual while overlooking broader influences and solutions. One potential method to influence the framing of harms and solutions is funding and organizing conferences. This study aims to examine how industry-funded alcohol and gambling conferences present themselves and frame product harms and solutions. METHOD: We conducted a descriptive examination and framing analysis of industry-funded alcohol and gambling conference descriptions and agendas or programs to examine how conferences were presented. We also examined how the included topics framed the issues of product harm and solutions. A hybrid approach (using both deductive and inductive coding) was used for framing analysis, informed by previous research. RESULTS: All the included conferences were targeted at professionals outside of the respective industry, many specifically mentioning researchers or policy makers. Several of the conferences offered professional credits for attendance. We identified four key frames that are consistent with the existing evidence base: a complex link between product consumption and harm, focus on the individual, deflection from population-level approaches, and medicalization/specialization of solutions. CONCLUSIONS: We found industry-favorable framings of harms and solutions within the alcohol and gambling conferences included in our sample. These conferences are aimed at professionals outside of the industry, including researchers and policy makers, with several offering professional credits for attendance. Greater awareness of the potential for industry-favorable framings at conference settings is required.