Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool.
Commercial Sector
Conflict of Interest
Global Health
Health Governance
Nutrition
Journal
International journal of health policy and management
ISSN: 2322-5939
Titre abrégé: Int J Health Policy Manag
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101619905
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Mar 2021
15 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
06
12
2019
accepted:
05
04
2020
pubmed:
3
7
2020
medline:
3
11
2021
entrez:
3
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32610752
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.52
pmc: PMC9056191
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
255-265Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Références
N Engl J Med. 1993 Aug 19;329(8):573-6
pubmed: 8336759
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Dec;4(12):e895-e896
pubmed: 27855860
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 22;14(8):e0221250
pubmed: 31437189
Global Health. 2017 Mar 8;13(1):12
pubmed: 28274267
Health Policy. 2013 Oct;112(3):172-8
pubmed: 23415508
Tob Control. 2012 Mar;21(2):274-80
pubmed: 22345267
Am J Public Health. 2018 Nov;108(11):1440-1441
pubmed: 30303728
Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387(10038):2582-2583
pubmed: 27353807
Health Policy Plan. 2015 Feb;30(1):28-38
pubmed: 24362641
Lancet. 2013 Feb 23;381(9867):670-9
pubmed: 23410611
Lancet. 2017 May 13;389(10082):1879
pubmed: 28457626
Obes Rev. 2019 Aug;20(8):1073-1084
pubmed: 30968553
Obes Rev. 2011 Dec;12(12):1022-30
pubmed: 21831231
Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Jun;101(6):1359-63
pubmed: 26034107
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 8;12(9):e0182612
pubmed: 28886049
Lancet. 2016 Jul 30;388(10043):446-7
pubmed: 27507745
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 18;6(4):e009342
pubmed: 27091816
Eur J Public Health. 2011 Aug;21(4):400-1
pubmed: 21771738
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 27;16:651
pubmed: 27465746
Adv Nutr. 2015 Jan 15;6(1):134-5
pubmed: 25593153