Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42204628›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2026

Commercial practices of the arms industry and implications for global public health: a scoping review.

Stephanie Meciar, Deborah Gleeson, Stacey Pizzino, Navid Teimouri, Katherine Cullerton

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stephanie MeciarSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. s.meciar@uq.edu.au.ORCID 0009-0002-2589-9043
Deborah GleesonSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8021-9130
Stacey PizzinoSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6185-231X
Navid TeimouriSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3340-3688
Katherine CullertonSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9517-6380

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe arms industry and the global trade in weapons pose significant direct and indirect risks to population health and equity. While health-harming industries such as tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed foods have been extensively examined with a commercial determinants of health lens, the commercial strategies of the arms industry remain critically underexplored in public health research. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature published between 2004 and 2024. Searches were undertaken across four academic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, ABI/INFORM, and Business Source Complete) and Google Scholar. Data were extracted and analysed using deductive and inductive coding, guided by a previously published typology of commercial practices: financial, political, scientific, marketing, supply chain and waste, labour and employment, and reputational management practices.

resultsForty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Marketing and political practices were the most frequently reported, while supply chain and waste, financial, labour and employment, reputational management, and scientific practices were less common. Our review found that the arms industry not only engages in commercial practices identified within established commercial determinants of health frameworks but also employs additional strategies, such as bribery and corruption, worker surveillance, contesting worker illness claims, and a number of supply chain practices that extend beyond existing typologies. The majority of studies focused on firearms-related practices, particularly within the United States, while few addressed other arms industry sub-sectors such as major conventional weapons and nuclear weapons, and little attention was given to low- and middle-income countries.

conclusionDespite the scale and influence of the arms industry, its commercial sector practices remain largely overlooked in public health research. Greater scrutiny and recognition of the arms industry as a commercial determinant of health is essential to mitigate the health harms and inequities associated with the global production, proliferation, and use of weapons.

Indexed as

CommerceFirearmsGlobal HealthPublic HealthHumansArms industryCommercial determinants of healthCommercial sector practicesGlobal healthGovernanceProliferationWeapons

Identifiers

PMID42204628
PMCPMC13217944

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.