Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Session 5: Nutrition communication The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists: Symposium on ‘The challenge of translating nutrition research into public health nutrition’

  • Katherine A. McComas (a1)
Abstract

One of the key challenges facing efforts to translate nutrition research into public health recommendations is understanding how the public will respond to these efforts, including whether they will trust the information. Among factors that influence trust in health communication is the extent to which the sources of the information are considered accurate, balanced, fair and unbiased. In relation to bias, few issues rise to as high a level of concern as the suspicion of conflicts of interest among scientists. Sometimes, even the perception of conflict of interest is enough to cast doubt on the integrity of the research and credibility of the results. The present paper provides an overview of research on conflicts of interest in science, including ways in which it has touched the field of nutrition. It then offers data on public views about conflicts of interest in science, including the extent to which funding sources influence trustworthiness of the research. The conclusions suggest implications for translational research in nutrition.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Session 5: Nutrition communication The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Session 5: Nutrition communication The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Session 5: Nutrition communication The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author: Dr Katherine McComas, fax +1 607 254 1322, email kam19@cornell.edu
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1.  PJ Friedman (2002) The impact of conflict of interest on trust in science. Sci Eng Ethics 8, 413420.

2.  CD DeAngelis (2000) Conflict of interest and the public trust. JAMA 284, 22372238.

3.  JJ Cohen (2001) Trust us to make a difference: Ensuring public confidence in the integrity of clinical research. Acad Med 76, 209214.

4.  CL Rock (1999) Conflict of interest: An important issue in nutrition research and communications. J Am Diet Assoc 99, 3132.

5.  JP Kassirer (2005) On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.

6. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1993) Conflict of interest. Lancet 341, 742743.

7.  K McNutt (1999) Conflict of interest. J Am Diet Assoc 99, 2930.

8.  DE Barnes & LA Bero (1996) Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: An analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research. J Health Polit Policy Law 21, 515542.

9.  S Sismondo (2008) How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med 66, 19091914.

10.  M Nestle (1993) Food lobbies, the food pyramid, and U.S. nutrition policy. Int J Health Serv 23, 483496.

14.  LI Lesser , CB Ebbeling , M Goozner , D Wypij & DS Ludwig (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. Plos Med 4, 4146.

15.  MB Katan (2007) Does industry sponsorship undermine the integrity of nutrition research? Plos Med 4, 34.

19.  DK Berlo , JB Lemert & RJ Mertz (1969) Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opin Q 33, 563576.

20.  JL Whitehead (1968) Factors of source credibility. Q J Speech 54, 5963.

21.  C Gaziano & K McGrath (1986) Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Q 63, 451462.

22.  P Meyer (1988) Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers. Journalism Q 65, 567574. 588.

23.  MD West (1994) Validating a scale for the measurement of credibility: A covariance structure approach. Journalism Q 71, 159168.

24.  KA McComas & CW Trumbo (2001) Source credibility in environmental health-risk controversies: Application of Meyer's credibility index. Risk Anal 21, 467480.

25.  CW Trumbo & KA McComas (2003) The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Anal 23, 343353.

26.  C Trumbo & K McComas (2008) Institutional trust, information processing and perception of environmental cancer risk. Int J Glob Environ Issues 8, 6176.

27.  O Renn & D Levine (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives, pp. 175218 [ RE Kasperson and PJM Stallen editors]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

28.  RG Peters , VT Covello & DB McCallum (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Anal 17, 4354.

29.  RE Kasperson , D Golding & S Tuler (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Soc Issues 48, 161187.

31.  G Cronkhite & J Liska (1976) A critique of factor analytic approaches to the study of credibility. Commun Monogr 43, 92107.

32.  A Tversky & D Kahneman (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 11241131.

33.  LJ Frewer , C Howard , D Hedderley & R Shepherd (1996) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological contructs. Risk Anal 16, 473500.

34.  JV Mitchell (1992) Perception of risk and credibility at toxic sites. Risk Anal 12, 1926.

36.  M Siegrist , G Cvetkovich & C Roth (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal 20, 353362.

37.  M Siegrist , GT Cvetkovich & H Gutscher (2001) Shared values, social trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk Anal 21, 10471053.

39.  KJ Rothman (1993) Conflict of interest: The new McCarthyism in science. JAMA 269, 27822784.

40.  SE Bennett , SL Rhine , RS Flickinger & LLM Bennett (1999) ‘Video malaise’ revisited – Public trust in the media and government. Harv Int J Press-Polit 4, 823.

41.  J Levine , JD Gussow , D Hastings & A Eccher (2003) Authors' financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra. Am J Public Health 93, 664669.

44.  B Margetts & L Arab (2001) Sponsorship of research in Public Health Nutrition. Public Health Nutr 4, 933.

45.  B Als-Nielsen , WD Chen , C Gluud & LL Kjaergard (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials – A reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290, 921928.

47.  DM Cook , EA Boyd , C Grossmann & LA Bero (2007) Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press. PLoS ONE 2, e1266.

48.  R Moynihan , L Bero , D Ross-Degnan , D Henry , K Lee , J Watkins , C Mah & SB Soumerai (2000) Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. New Engl J Med 342, 16451650.

49.  KA McComas & LM Simone (2003) Media coverage of conflicts of interest in science. Sci Commun 24, 395419.

50.  K McComas , LS Tuite , L Waks & LA Sherman (2007) Predicting satisfaction and outcome acceptance with advisory committee meetings: The role of procedural justice. J Appl Soc Psychol 37, 905927.

51.  ML Hecht (1978) The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Hum Commun Res 4, 253264.

55.  G Cvetkovich , M Siegrist , R Murray & S Tragesser (2002) New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Anal 22, 359367.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
  • ISSN: 0029-6651
  • EISSN: 1475-2719
  • URL: /core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 40 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 131 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.