ArticleGlobal health research and policy2025
Private sector engagement strategies with implications for NCD prevention and control: focus on ten international organisations.
Article in Global health research and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInternational organisations and development agencies have important roles to play in addressing noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and their risk factors at the nexus of health, socioeconomic, and environmental development challenges. Much of this work occurs through direct engagement with the private sector. We aimed to assess the types of private sector engagement (PSE) approaches and the degree of alignment across ten major international organisations whose work is critical to achieving global NCD and mental health goals.
methodsWe examined the publicly available PSE strategy documents for a purposive sample of ten major international development partners. We obtained copies of each organisation's publicly available PSE policy documents and extracted data on the stated purpose, processes, and types of engagement. We used thematic analysis and triangulation to identify areas of agreement, dissonance and silence across the policy approaches.
resultsWhilst all PSE documents emphasised the importance of conducting due diligence, they varied widely in their approach to the risk of engagement and the sophistication of potential conflict of interest management strategies. Many documents were silent on prohibited industries, managing reputational risks, and guidance to Member States. The proactive engagement stance in USAID and World Bank policy documents contrasted starkly with more conservative approaches advanced by UNDP, FAO, and WHO.
conclusionsThe core practices of conducting due diligence and risk mitigation are common to all of the major international organizations we assessed, however, the framing, content, and PSE processes vary widely. The potential impact of these findings is that WHO and other partners can focus on adopting common approaches wherever possible for greater coherence and smoother coordination across the wider development system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.