30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Key to scientific integrity is ensuring that research findings are considered credible by scientific peers, practitioners, policymakers and the public. Industry sponsorship of nutritional research can result in bias and raises significant professional, public and media concern. Yet, there is no international consensus on how to prevent or manage conflicts of interest for researchers considering engaging with the food industry. This study aimed to determine internationally agreed principles to guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry to prevent or manage conflicts of interest. We used a two-stage, online Delphi study for researchers (n = 100 in 28 countries), and an online survey for stakeholders (n = 84 in 26 countries). Levels of agreement were sought with 56 principles derived from a systematic review. Respondent comments were analysed using qualitative content analysis. High levels of agreement on principles were achieved for both groups (researchers 68%; stakeholders 65%). Highest levels of agreement were with principles concerning research methods and governance. More contentious were principles that required values-based decision-making, such as determining which elements of the commercial sector are acceptable to interact with. These results provide the basis for developing internationally-agreed guidelines for population health researchers governing interactions with the food industry.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research.

          The aim of this paper was to provide insight into the Delphi technique by outlining our personal experiences during its use over a 10-year period in a variety of applications. As a means of achieving consensus on an issue, the Delphi research method has become widely used in healthcare research generally and nursing research in particular. The literature on this technique is expanding, mainly addressing what it is and how it should be used. However, there is still much confusion and uncertainty surrounding it, particularly about issues such as modifications, consensus, anonymity, definition of experts, how 'experts' are selected and how non-respondents are pursued. This issues that arise when planning and carrying out a Delphi study include the definition of consensus; the issue of anonymity vs. quasi-anonymity for participants; how to estimate the time needed to collect the data, analyse each 'round', feed back results to participants, and gain their responses to this feedback; how to define and select the 'experts' who will be asked to participate; how to enhance response rates; and how many 'rounds' to conduct. Many challenges and questions are raised when using the Delphi technique, but there is no doubt that it is an important method for achieving consensus on issues where none previously existed. Researchers need to adapt the method to suit their particular study.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding financial conflicts of interest.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                22 August 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 8
                : e0221250
                Affiliations
                [1 ] MRC Epidemiology Unit & Centre for Diet and Activity Research, Institute of Metabolic Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [2 ] School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, Australia
                Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, BANGLADESH
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work. To accord with the principles espoused in this research, we have prepared a detailed declaration of interests for all co-authors, which can be found in S1 File.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9517-6380
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1861-6757
                Article
                PONE-D-19-06739
                10.1371/journal.pone.0221250
                6705832
                31437189
                f659d786-ead8-4412-a989-e87a3f43a0c2
                © 2019 Cullerton et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 7 March 2019
                : 4 August 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 5, Pages: 17
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: MC_UU_12015/5
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Award ID: IS-BRC-1215-20014
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100011032, Centre for Diet and Activity Research;
                Award ID: Core grant
                Funded by: MRC Epidemiology Unit
                Award ID: Core grant
                MW, JA, NF, OF and KC are funded by core grants to Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge and the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR). CEDAR is a UKCRC public health research centre of excellence with funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, MRC, National Institute of Health Research and the Wellcome Trust. NF acknowledges MRC funding (MC_UU_12015/5), and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge: Nutrition, Diet, and Lifestyle Research Theme (IS-BRC-1215-20014). The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent those of any of the above named funders. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Science Policy
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Nutrition
                Diet
                Food
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Nutrition
                Diet
                Food
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Government Funding of Science
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Corporate Funding of Science
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Nutrition
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Nutrition
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Custom metadata
                The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available as per the rules and regulations of the MRC Epidemiology Unit and the University of Cambridge. Data are available from the MRC Epidemiology Institutional Data Access Committee via: data-sharing@ 123456mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article