The Firearm Industry as a Commercial Determinant of Health

Mapping the Lobbying Footprint of Harmful Industries: 23 Years of Data From OpenSecrets

Policy Points Our research reveals the similarities and differences among the lobbying activities of tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and ultraprocessed food industries, which are often a barrier to the implementation of public health policies. Over 23 years, we found that just six organizations dominated lobbying expenses in the tobacco and alcohol sectors, whereas the gambling sector outsourced most of their lobbying to professional firms. Databases like OpenSecrets are a useful resource to monitor the commercial determinants of health.

CONTEXT

Commercial lobbying is often a barrier to the development and implementation of public health policies. Yet, little is known about the similarities and differences in the lobbying practices of different industry sectors or types of commercial actors. This study compares the lobbying practices of four industry sectors that have been the focus of much public health research and advocacy: tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and ultraprocessed foods.

METHODS

Data on lobbying expenditures and lobbyist backgrounds were sourced from the OpenSecrets database, which monitors lobbying in the United States. Lobbying expenditure data were analyzed for the 1998-2020 period. We classified commercial actors as companies or trade associations. We used Power BI software to link, analyze, and visualize data sets.

FINDINGS

We found that the ultraprocessed food industry spent the most on lobbying ($1.15 billion), followed by gambling ($817 million), tobacco ($755 million), and alcohol ($541 million). Overall, companies were more active than trade associations, with associations being least active in the tobacco industry. Spending was often highly concentrated, with two organizations accounting for almost 60% of tobacco spending and four organizations accounting for more than half of alcohol spending. Lobbyists that had formerly worked in government were mainly employed by third-party lobby firms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows how comparing the lobbying practices of different industry sectors offers a deeper appreciation of the diversity and similarities of commercial actors. Understanding these patterns can help public health actors to develop effective counterstrategies.

Children, young people and the Commercial Determinants of Health

The commercial determinants of health (CDoH) have a significant impact on the health and well-being of children and young people (subsequently referred to as young people). While most research has focused on the influence of harmful industry marketing on young people, more recent CDoH frameworks have emphasized that a range of commercial systems and practices may influence health and well-being. Focusing on the impact of traditional and digital media, contemporary marketing strategies and corporate production and consumption processes, the following article outlines the impact of the CDoH on the health and wellbeing of young people. The article also provides evidence about how young people conceptualize the impact of corporate actors on health, and their involvement in advocacy strategies to respond. The article recommends that when collaborating with young people to understand the impacts of and responses to the CDoH, we should seek to diversify investigations towards the impact of a range of corporate tactics, systems and structures, rather than simply focusing on the impacts of advertising. This should include considering areas and priorities that young people identify as areas for action and understanding why some young people are more vulnerable to commercial tactics than others. Youth are powerful allies in responding to the CDoH. Public health and health promotion stakeholders could do more to champion the voices of young people and allow them to be active participants in the decisions that are made about harmful commercial practices and health.

Case Bias Case Basis: Expanding Morbidity and Mortality Conference to Examine the Impact of Disparities in Surgical Care

INTRODUCTION

Originally designed as a forum to discuss adverse patient events, Surgery Morbidity & Mortality Conference (M&M) has evolved into an integral tool within surgical education where trainees at all levels are taught to critically examine decision-making. Others have expanded the scope of subsets of M&M conferences to include additional factors that influence patient outcomes, such as social determinants of health, implicit bias and structural policies that contribute to health disparities. In this study, we implemented a disparities-based discussion into our surgical department's weekly M&M conference and examined the effect(s) on participants' understanding and perceptions of key disparities in access to surgical care.

METHODS

An anonymous electronic survey was sent to attendees of the Department of Surgery's M&M conference including faculty, residents and medical students prior to implementation of the intervention. The survey queried perceptions of the presence and impact of disparities in access to surgical care and how these are addressed at the study institution. The standard presenter slide template was updated to include a "Disparities Factors" section within the "Reasons for Complication" slide. After over 1 year, a postintervention survey was sent to conference attendees that included the same questions as the initial survey, as well as new questions related to the intervention. Descriptive statistics were performed on survey results, and comparisons were made for paired pre-post items.

RESULTS

Eighty conference attendees completed the pre-intervention survey, and 70 completed the postintervention survey (22 [27.5%]; 22 [31.4%] attendings, 24 [30.0%]; 21 [30.0%] residents, 34 [42.5%]; 27 [38.6%] medical students respectively). Socioeconomics and language were most commonly identified both pre- and postintervention as the most important factors contributing to disparities in care experienced by patients at the study institution. Respondents agreed disparities in access significantly impact surgical care, and there was an increase in the number of respondents who reported feeling that disparities are being addressed postintervention. A total of 69% (n = 48) of respondents thought that integrating discussion of disparities in access to surgical care into M&M improved their understanding of the role these disparities play, 66% (n = 46) felt that their own thinking or practice changed regarding patient disparities, 84% (n = 59) reported integrating these discussions of disparities into M&M has been helpful overall.

CONCLUSION

The inclusion of a disparities discussion in weekly M&M conference has led to positive change at the study institution, fostering a more comprehensive and socially conscious dialogue within the Department of Surgery. Survey respondents agreed that disparities exist in access to surgical care, and that the intervention improved their perceptions of how the study institution addresses disparities. Respondents felt that the integration of a disparities discussion was overall helpful, improved their knowledge of disparities in access to surgical care, and impacted their plans to address disparities in their own practices.

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.

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.

A qualitative framing analysis of how firearm manufacturers and related bodies communicate to the public on gun-related harms and solutions

There is a growing understanding that the producers and sellers of harmful products directly and indirectly affect population health and policy, including through seeking to influence public understanding about the nature of harms and their solutions. However, the firearm industry and related organisations have not to date been the subject of this type of enquiry. This study sought to address this evidential gap through examining the ways in which the firearm industry and industry-associated organisations frame firearms, firearm-related harms and possible solutions to gun violence. This was a thematic qualitative documentary analysis of materials from 7 of the largest firearm manufacturers and associated organisations. Two authors independently extracted textual material from web articles, press releases, annual reports and shareholder communications between 1st April 2019 to 1st April 2020 (302 documents). A hybrid approach combining both deductive and inductive coding was adopted, guided by the literature on the commercial determinants of health and using NVivo version 12. The firearm industry and firearm industry-funded organisations use framings about the safety and role of guns, evidence on associated harms and solutions that align with the industry's business interests, consistent with evidence on other harmful product manufacturers. This study identified framing strategies employed by the firearm industry and related organisations. These included attempts to undermine evidence, linking regulation to a dystopian future, minimising some of the most common harms, placing the responsibility for harms on individuals, and attempting to foster a heightened sense of risk to personal safety.

The COVID-19 Pandemic Exposes Another Commercial Determinant of Health: The Global Firearm Industry

Firearm violence is a public health crisis worsened by lobbying, marketing, and supply chain tactics from the private industry. During the heightened burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health practitioners should use a commercial determinant of health lens to combat this threat.