“He who pays the piper calls the tune”: Researcher experiences of funder suppression of health behaviour intervention trial findings

Background Governments commonly fund research with specific applications in mind. Such mechanisms may facilitate ‘research translation’ but funders may employ strategies that can also undermine the integrity of both science and government. We estimated the prevalence and investigated correlates of funder efforts to suppress health behaviour intervention trial findings. Methods Our sampling frame was lead or corresponding authors of papers (published 2007–2017) included in a Cochrane review, reporting findings from trials of interventions to improve nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, smoking, and substance use. Suppression events were based on a previous survey of public health academics. Participants answered questions concerning seven suppression events in their efforts to report the trial, e.g., [I was…] “asked to suppress certain findings as they were viewed as being unfavourable.” We also examined the association between information on study funder, geographical location, targeted health behaviour, country democracy rating and age of publication with reported suppression. Findings We received responses from 104 authors (50%) of 208 eligible trials, from North America (34%), Europe (33%), Oceania (17%), and other countries (16%). Eighteen percent reported at least one of the seven suppression events relating to the trial in question. The most commonly reported suppression event was funder(s) expressing reluctance to publish because they considered the results ‘unfavourable’ (9% reported). We found no strong associations with the subject of research, funding source, democracy, region, or year of publication. Conclusions One in five researchers in this global sample reported being pressured to delay, alter, or not publish the findings of health behaviour intervention trials. Regulation of funder and university practices, establishing study registries, and compulsory disclosure of funding conditions in scientific journals, are needed to protect the integrity of public-good research.

The relationship among social capital, eHealth literacy and health behaviours in Chinese elderly people: a cross-sectional study

Background Social capital has been linked to health behaviours, but the underlying mechanism is unclear. Previous studies have found that health literacy played the role of a mediator in the relationships among social capital, individual physical activity and nutrition. But it is not clear whether eHealth literacy mediates the impact of social capital on health behaviours. Therefore, our research aimed to explore the relationships among social capital (structural and cognitive social capital), eHealth literacy, and the health behaviours of elderly people, and to analyse the mediating effect of eHealth literacy, while providing a theoretical basis for a health behaviour intervention for elderly people. Methods From January to February 2019, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1201 Chinese people aged over 60 years using the Chinese Shortened Social Capital Scale (contains two subscales of structural social capital and cognitive social capital), eHealth Literacy Scale, and Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile. We used structural equation modelling to test a hypothetical mediation model. Results The mean scores of social capital was 72.07 (SD = 13.03), 17.24 (SD = 9.34) for eHealth literacy, and 112.23 (SD = 23.25) for health behaviours. Social capital and eHealth literacy were significantly correlated with health behaviours, and social capital and structural social capital were significantly correlated with eHealth literacy. Lastly, eHealth literacy mediated the relationship between structural social capital and health behaviours. Conclusions eHealth literacy was an important mediating factor for elderly people’s structural social capital and health behaviours. Therefore, social capital and eHealth literacy must be considered when designing and implementing health behaviour intervention programmes for elderly people.

How do health behaviour interventions take account of social context? A literature trend and co-citation analysis

In recent years, health behaviour interventions have received a great deal of attention in both research and policy as a means of encouraging people to lead healthier lives. The emphasis of such interventions has varied over time, in terms of level of intervention (e.g. individual vs community) and drawing on different disciplinary perspectives. Recently, a number of critiques have focused on how health behaviour interventions sometimes sideline issues of social context, framing health as a matter of individual choice and, by implication, a personal responsibility. Part of this criticism is that health behaviour interventions often do not draw on alternative social science understandings of the structured and contextual aspects of behaviour and health. Yet to our knowledge, no study has attempted to empirically assess the extent to which, and in what ways, the health behaviour intervention field has paid attention to social context. In this article, we undertake this task using bibliometric techniques in order to map out the health behaviour intervention field. We find that the number of health behaviour interventions has grown rapidly in recent years, especially since around 2006, and that references to social science disciplines and concepts that foreground issues of social context are rare and, relatively speaking, constitute less of the field post 2006. More quantifiable concepts are used most, and those more close to the complexities of social context are mentioned least. The document co-citation analysis suggests that pre 2006, documents referring to social context were relatively diffuse in the network of key citations, but post 2006 this influence had largely diminished. The journal co-citation analysis shows less disciplinary overlap post 2006. At present, health behaviour interventions are continuing to focus on individualised approaches drawn from behavioural psychology and behavioural economics. Our findings lend empirical support to a number of recent papers that suggest more interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to advance the field.