Data from: A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products
Objectives: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products ‘won't work’, following the UK government's decision to ‘wait and see’ until further evidence is available. Design Content analysi...
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Dataset |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | |
| container_volume | |
| creator | Hatchard, Jenny L. Fooks, Gary J. Evans-Reeves, Karen A. Ulucanlar, Selda Gilmore, Anna B. |
| description | Objectives: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational
tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of
tobacco products ‘won't work’, following the UK government's
decision to ‘wait and see’ until further evidence is available. Design
Content analysis. Setting: We analysed the evidence cited in submissions
by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health
consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. Outcome measures: The
volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by
independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was
compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging
. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality
of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded
to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences
were resolved. Results: 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to
promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’. Of
these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry
connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of
TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that
the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of
tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.5061/dryad.7dm1p |
| format | Dataset |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>datacite_PQ8</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_7dm1p</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_5061_dryad_7dm1p</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_7dm1p3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVj0tOxDAMhrNhgYAVF_AeGFohGIkd4iEOwL5yY3ewJi8Sp1JvxDFJq7kAK0u_v9_WZ8x13-0eu6f-nvKCtNuT79O5-X1DRZhy9M_wAjaLikUHPKOrqBIDxAn0m2GOrnq-hcyuLYNlwEDwU9GJLivEsxCveamjF1UmGJetqnFEayNIoFo0tzBCTCmWxmq7gpmkNDyhPeJBwmH7eSqlHKlaLZfmbEJX-Oo0L8zNx_vX6-cdNQErykPK4jEvQ98Nq-eweQ6b58P_6D-t4mcU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>dataset</recordtype></control><display><type>dataset</type><title>Data from: A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products</title><source>DataCite</source><creator>Hatchard, Jenny L. ; Fooks, Gary J. ; Evans-Reeves, Karen A. ; Ulucanlar, Selda ; Gilmore, Anna B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hatchard, Jenny L. ; Fooks, Gary J. ; Evans-Reeves, Karen A. ; Ulucanlar, Selda ; Gilmore, Anna B.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational
tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of
tobacco products ‘won't work’, following the UK government's
decision to ‘wait and see’ until further evidence is available. Design
Content analysis. Setting: We analysed the evidence cited in submissions
by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health
consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. Outcome measures: The
volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by
independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was
compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging
. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality
of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded
to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences
were resolved. Results: 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to
promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’. Of
these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry
connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of
TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that
the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of
tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most
relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally,
n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least
relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected
evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed
journal (p=0.0045). Conclusions: With few exceptions, evidence cited by
TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’
lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers
could use these three criteria—subject matter, independence and
peer-review status—to critically assess evidence submitted to them by
corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.</description><identifier>DOI: 10.5061/dryad.7dm1p</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dryad</publisher><subject>Evidence ; governance ; Tobacco</subject><creationdate>2014</creationdate><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,1894</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://commons.datacite.org/doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7dm1p$$EView_record_in_DataCite.org$$FView_record_in_$$GDataCite.org$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hatchard, Jenny L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fooks, Gary J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans-Reeves, Karen A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ulucanlar, Selda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilmore, Anna B.</creatorcontrib><title>Data from: A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products</title><description>Objectives: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational
tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of
tobacco products ‘won't work’, following the UK government's
decision to ‘wait and see’ until further evidence is available. Design
Content analysis. Setting: We analysed the evidence cited in submissions
by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health
consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. Outcome measures: The
volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by
independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was
compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging
. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality
of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded
to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences
were resolved. Results: 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to
promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’. Of
these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry
connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of
TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that
the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of
tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most
relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally,
n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least
relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected
evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed
journal (p=0.0045). Conclusions: With few exceptions, evidence cited by
TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’
lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers
could use these three criteria—subject matter, independence and
peer-review status—to critically assess evidence submitted to them by
corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.</description><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>governance</subject><subject>Tobacco</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>dataset</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>dataset</recordtype><sourceid>PQ8</sourceid><recordid>eNqVj0tOxDAMhrNhgYAVF_AeGFohGIkd4iEOwL5yY3ewJi8Sp1JvxDFJq7kAK0u_v9_WZ8x13-0eu6f-nvKCtNuT79O5-X1DRZhy9M_wAjaLikUHPKOrqBIDxAn0m2GOrnq-hcyuLYNlwEDwU9GJLivEsxCveamjF1UmGJetqnFEayNIoFo0tzBCTCmWxmq7gpmkNDyhPeJBwmH7eSqlHKlaLZfmbEJX-Oo0L8zNx_vX6-cdNQErykPK4jEvQ98Nq-eweQ6b58P_6D-t4mcU</recordid><startdate>20140313</startdate><enddate>20140313</enddate><creator>Hatchard, Jenny L.</creator><creator>Fooks, Gary J.</creator><creator>Evans-Reeves, Karen A.</creator><creator>Ulucanlar, Selda</creator><creator>Gilmore, Anna B.</creator><general>Dryad</general><scope>DYCCY</scope><scope>PQ8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140313</creationdate><title>Data from: A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products</title><author>Hatchard, Jenny L. ; Fooks, Gary J. ; Evans-Reeves, Karen A. ; Ulucanlar, Selda ; Gilmore, Anna B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_7dm1p3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>datasets</rsrctype><prefilter>datasets</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>governance</topic><topic>Tobacco</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hatchard, Jenny L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fooks, Gary J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans-Reeves, Karen A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ulucanlar, Selda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilmore, Anna B.</creatorcontrib><collection>DataCite (Open Access)</collection><collection>DataCite</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hatchard, Jenny L.</au><au>Fooks, Gary J.</au><au>Evans-Reeves, Karen A.</au><au>Ulucanlar, Selda</au><au>Gilmore, Anna B.</au><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>DATA</ristype><title>Data from: A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products</title><date>2014-03-13</date><risdate>2014</risdate><abstract>Objectives: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational
tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of
tobacco products ‘won't work’, following the UK government's
decision to ‘wait and see’ until further evidence is available. Design
Content analysis. Setting: We analysed the evidence cited in submissions
by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health
consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. Outcome measures: The
volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by
independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was
compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging
. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality
of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded
to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences
were resolved. Results: 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to
promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’. Of
these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry
connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of
TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that
the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of
tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most
relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally,
n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least
relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected
evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed
journal (p=0.0045). Conclusions: With few exceptions, evidence cited by
TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’
lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers
could use these three criteria—subject matter, independence and
peer-review status—to critically assess evidence submitted to them by
corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.</abstract><pub>Dryad</pub><doi>10.5061/dryad.7dm1p</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| identifier | DOI: 10.5061/dryad.7dm1p |
| ispartof | |
| issn | |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_7dm1p |
| source | DataCite |
| subjects | Evidence governance Tobacco |
| title | Data from: A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T16%3A42%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-datacite_PQ8&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.au=Hatchard,%20Jenny%20L.&rft.date=2014-03-13&rft_id=info:doi/10.5061/dryad.7dm1p&rft_dat=%3Cdatacite_PQ8%3E10_5061_dryad_7dm1p%3C/datacite_PQ8%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |