| Title |
The Impact of Corporate Practices on Health: Implications for Health Policy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health Policy, March 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200158 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas Freudenberg, Sandro Galea |
| Abstract |
Although corporate practices play a substantial role in shaping health and health behavior, public health researchers have rarely systematically studied these practices as a social determinant of health. We consider case studies of three products - trans fat, a food additive and a preservative; Vioxx, a pain killer; and sports utility vehicles - to illustrate the role of corporate policies and practices in the production of health and disease and the implications for health policy. In recent years, public health advocates, researchers, and lawyers have used strategies to reduce the adverse health impact of corporate practices. Systematic analysis of these experiences yields insights that can guide the development of health policies that increase opportunities for primary prevention by discouraging harmful corporate practices. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 24% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 16% |
| Unknown | 35 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 41 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,246,288
of 23,674,309 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#106
of 795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,015
of 82,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,674,309 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 82,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.