PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
There has been remarkable tobacco control progress in many places around the globe. Tobacco industry interference (TII) has been identified as the most significant barrier to further implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). Civil society has been recognised as a key actor in countering TII. While TII has been extensively studied for several decades now, there is little research that focuses on counteractions to limit it and their effectiveness to do so. This scoping review seeks to map the peer-reviewed literature on civil society\'s activities of countering TII in policymaking to identify common counterstrategies and assess their effectiveness.
Data sources: We searched Embase, IBSS, JSTOR, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science using the following terms: (\"Tobacco industry\" OR \"Tobacco compan*\") AND. (\"corporate political activity\" OR \"CPA\" OR \"lobbying\" OR \"interference\") AND (\"advoca*\" OR \"counter*\" OR \"activi*\"), without time or language restrictions.
Our selection criteria included peer-reviewed studies that were written in English, German, or Spanish that drew on primary data and/or legal and policy documents and reported at least one specific example of civil society members or organisations countering tobacco industry action-based strategies.
Advocates\' counterstrategies were analysed inductively and countered industry strategies were analysed using the Policy Dystopia Model (PDM). Perceptions of effectiveness of countering attempts were analysed descriptively.
We found five common counterstrategies among 30 included papers covering five WHO regions; 1. Exposing industry conduct and false claims; 2. Accessing decision-makers; 3. Generating and using evidence; 4. Filing a complaint or taking legal action; 5. Mobilising coalition and potential supporters. These counterstrategies were used to work against a wide range of industry strategies, which are captured by five action-based strategies described in the PDM (Coalition Management, Information Management, Direct Access and Influence, Litigation, Reputation Management). While some studies reported the outcome of the countering activities, their impact remained largely underexplored.
The review shows that peer-reviewed literature documenting how civil society actors counter TII is scarce. It suggests that advocates employ a range of strategies to counter TII in its different forms and use them flexibly. More work is needed to better understand the effects of their actions. This could stimulate discussions about, and facilitate learning from, past experiences and help to further enhance advocates\' capacity.
Data sources: We searched Embase, IBSS, JSTOR, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science using the following terms: (\"Tobacco industry\" OR \"Tobacco compan*\") AND. (\"corporate political activity\" OR \"CPA\" OR \"lobbying\" OR \"interference\") AND (\"advoca*\" OR \"counter*\" OR \"activi*\"), without time or language restrictions.
Our selection criteria included peer-reviewed studies that were written in English, German, or Spanish that drew on primary data and/or legal and policy documents and reported at least one specific example of civil society members or organisations countering tobacco industry action-based strategies.
Advocates\' counterstrategies were analysed inductively and countered industry strategies were analysed using the Policy Dystopia Model (PDM). Perceptions of effectiveness of countering attempts were analysed descriptively.
We found five common counterstrategies among 30 included papers covering five WHO regions; 1. Exposing industry conduct and false claims; 2. Accessing decision-makers; 3. Generating and using evidence; 4. Filing a complaint or taking legal action; 5. Mobilising coalition and potential supporters. These counterstrategies were used to work against a wide range of industry strategies, which are captured by five action-based strategies described in the PDM (Coalition Management, Information Management, Direct Access and Influence, Litigation, Reputation Management). While some studies reported the outcome of the countering activities, their impact remained largely underexplored.
The review shows that peer-reviewed literature documenting how civil society actors counter TII is scarce. It suggests that advocates employ a range of strategies to counter TII in its different forms and use them flexibly. More work is needed to better understand the effects of their actions. This could stimulate discussions about, and facilitate learning from, past experiences and help to further enhance advocates\' capacity.
摘要：
背景：全球许多地方的烟草控制取得了显着进展。烟草行业干扰（TII）已被确定为进一步执行《世界卫生组织烟草控制框架公约》（WHOFCTC）的最大障碍。民间社会已被视为对抗TII的关键角色。虽然TII已经被广泛研究了几十年，很少有研究关注限制它的对策及其有效性。本范围审查旨在绘制有关公民社会在决策中应对TII的活动的同行评审文献，以确定共同的反策略并评估其有效性。
方法：数据源：我们搜索了Embase，IBSS,JSTOR,PubMed,科学直接，Scopus和WebofScience使用以下术语：（“烟草行业”或“烟草公司”）和。(\"公司政治活动\"或\"CPA\"或\"游说\"或\"干扰\")和(\"倡导*\"或\"反对*\"或\"活动*\"),没有时间或语言限制。
方法：我们的选择标准包括用英语撰写的同行评审研究，德语,或西班牙语，借鉴了主要数据和/或法律和政策文件，并报告了至少一个民间社会成员或组织反对烟草业基于行动的战略的具体例子。
方法：对倡导者的反策略进行了归纳分析，并使用政策反乌托邦模型（PDM）对反行业策略进行了分析。对反击尝试的有效性进行了描述性分析。
结果：我们在涵盖世卫组织五个地区的30篇论文中发现了五种常见的对策；1.揭露行业行为和虚假陈述；2.访问决策者；3.生成和使用证据；4.提起诉讼或采取法律行动；5.动员联盟和潜在支持者。这些反策略被用来对抗广泛的行业策略，这是由PDM(联盟管理，信息管理,直接访问和影响，诉讼,声誉管理)。虽然一些研究报告了反活动的结果，它们的影响在很大程度上仍未得到充分利用。
结论：评论显示，记录公民社会行为者如何应对TII的同行评审文献很少。它建议倡导者采用一系列策略来应对不同形式的TII，并灵活运用它们。需要做更多的工作来更好地了解他们行动的影响。这可能会引发关于，并促进学习，过去的经验和有助于进一步提高倡导者的能力。
方法：数据源：我们搜索了Embase，IBSS,JSTOR,PubMed,科学直接，Scopus和WebofScience使用以下术语：（“烟草行业”或“烟草公司”）和。(\"公司政治活动\"或\"CPA\"或\"游说\"或\"干扰\")和(\"倡导*\"或\"反对*\"或\"活动*\"),没有时间或语言限制。
方法：我们的选择标准包括用英语撰写的同行评审研究，德语,或西班牙语，借鉴了主要数据和/或法律和政策文件，并报告了至少一个民间社会成员或组织反对烟草业基于行动的战略的具体例子。
方法：对倡导者的反策略进行了归纳分析，并使用政策反乌托邦模型（PDM）对反行业策略进行了分析。对反击尝试的有效性进行了描述性分析。
结果：我们在涵盖世卫组织五个地区的30篇论文中发现了五种常见的对策；1.揭露行业行为和虚假陈述；2.访问决策者；3.生成和使用证据；4.提起诉讼或采取法律行动；5.动员联盟和潜在支持者。这些反策略被用来对抗广泛的行业策略，这是由PDM(联盟管理，信息管理,直接访问和影响，诉讼,声誉管理)。虽然一些研究报告了反活动的结果，它们的影响在很大程度上仍未得到充分利用。
结论：评论显示，记录公民社会行为者如何应对TII的同行评审文献很少。它建议倡导者采用一系列策略来应对不同形式的TII，并灵活运用它们。需要做更多的工作来更好地了解他们行动的影响。这可能会引发关于，并促进学习，过去的经验和有助于进一步提高倡导者的能力。
