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

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.

I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet version 1 dated 23/5/2017 and have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered.
I understand that all personal information will remain confidential and that all efforts will be made to ensure that I cannot be identified (except as might be required by law).
I agree that data gathered in this study will be stored anonymously and securely, and may be used in future research.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason.
If you have any questions about these consent details, please contact coi@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk. Please note, you are able to complete part of the survey and finish it at a different time. However, please complete the whole page and click "Next" for your answers up to that point to be saved.
https://epi-devforms4.medschl.cam.ac.uk:8443/coi/questionnaire 2/29 COI (v. 1_11/04/2017) In this survey commercial food/and or beverage companies will be referred to generically as the "food industry" for brevity. This term encompasses growers, producers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and their representative associations that range in size from small enterprises to large multi-national corporations. We exclude from this definition the alcohol industry, although note that some companies are involved in both food and alcohol.
In this survey, we also refer to "researchers", by which we mean those whose research includes a focus on diet or nutrition and health. Our particular interest is in dietary public health and public health nutrition research. Have you ever accepted direct funding (e.g. research grants) from the food industry?

Yes • No
In the past 5 years, have you accepted in-kind contributions (e.g. conference fees, travel costs) from the food industry?

Yes • No
Have you ever accepted in-kind contributions (e.g. conference fees, travel costs) from the food industry?

Yes • No
In the past 5 years, have you engaged in formal dialogue (e.g. exchanging information or data and/or providing guidance or advice without receiving financial contributions) with the food industry?

Yes • No
Have you ever engaged in formal dialogue (e.g. exchanging information and/or providing guidance or advice, without receiving financial contributions) with the food industry?

Yes • No
Have you had any other interaction with the food industry or affiliated organisations including employment, that is not described above? Responding to the lack of explicit consensus about what constitutes acceptable or effective engagement between researchers and the food industry, the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) at the University of Cambridge has funded a project to explore and seek consensus on this issue.
As part of this project we would like you to rate the statements associated with the three questions on the following pages based on your personal opinion. The first question examines general principles and actions for preventing and managing conflicts of interest between researchers and the food industry; these actions have previously been identified by researchers and different health associations. Questions 2 and 3 explore further the types of food industry organisation(s) that it may be acceptable to engage with. The previous question examined some characteristics of a commercial food and/or beverage company that you may consider when assessing whether or not you should engage with them. Are there any additional characteristics of a commercial food and/or beverage company that influences whether it is more or less acceptable to engage with or accept funding from them? Some suggestions have been provided below. However, feel free to elaborate in the text box below.   (v. 1_11/04/2017) Question 3 The next question is about engaging with different types of food companies assuming you intend to follow best practice regarding conflict of interest.
Part A asks in your opinion which commercial food and/or beverage organisations are suitable partners to accept direct funding from (e.g. research grants). Part B asks in your opinion which commercial food and/or beverage organisations are suitable partners to accept contributions in kind from (e.g. conference attendance, travel costs, assistance in printing reports etc.). Part C asks in your opinion which food and/or beverage organisations are suitable partners to engage with in formal dialogue (e.g. exchanging information, trying to influence their internal organisation policies -no funding is involved).