Search

Simple Summary: People experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of dying from tobacco-related cancers due to their elevated tobacco use rates but are not offered evidence-based tobacco dependence interventions by homeless-serving agencies within the United States. Through pre- and post-implementation provider interviews, this qualitative study explored the factors enabling and inhibiting organizational readiness to implement a comprehensive tobacco-cessation intervention within three homeless-serving agencies. Although the organizational readiness was initially high, at the post-implementation, changing contextual factors, primarily resource privations, undermined the provider change efficacy and limited the program implementation. These findings support the value and acceptability of implementing tobacco-cessation interventions within homeless-serving agencies, and they identify the factors needed to build organizational capacity for successful implementation. Despite the high tobacco use rates (~80%) and tobacco-related cancers being the second leading cause of death among people experiencing homelessness within the United States, these individuals rarely receive tobacco use treatment from homeless-serving agencies (HSAs). This qualitative study explored the enablers and inhibitors of implementing an evidence-based tobacco-free workplace (TFW) program offering TFW policy adoption, specialized provider training to treat tobacco use, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) within HSAs. Pre- and post-implementation interviews with providers and managers (n = 13) pursued adapting interventions to specific HSAs and assessed the program success, respectively. The organizational readiness for change theory framed the data content analysis, yielding three categories: change commitment, change efficacy and contextual factors. Pre- to post-implementation, increasing challenges impacted the organizational capacity and providers' attitudes, wherein previously enabling factors were reframed as inhibiting, resulting in limited implementation despite resource provision. These findings indicate that low-resourced HSAs require additional support and guidance to overcome infrastructure challenges and build the capacity needed to implement a TFW program. This study's findings can guide future TFW program interventions, enable identification of agencies that are well-positioned to adopt such programs, and facilitate capacity-building efforts to ensure their successful participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There are concerns that some non-profit organisations, financed by the food industry, promote industry positions in research and policy materials. Using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, we test the proposition that the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), one prominent non-for profit in international health and nutrition research, promotes industry positions.Design: U.S. Right to Know filed five FOI from 2015 to 2018 covering communications with researchers at four US institutions: Texas A&M, University of Illinois, University of Colorado and North Carolina State University. It received 15 078 pages, which were uploaded to the University of California San Francisco's Industry Documents Library. We searched the Library exploring it thematically for instances of: (1) funding research activity that supports industry interests; (2) publishing and promoting industry-sponsored positions or literature; (3) disseminating favourable material to decision makers and the public and (4) suppressing views that do not support industry.Results: Available emails confirmed that ILSI's funding by corporate entities leads to industry influence over some of ILSI activities. Emails reveal a pattern of activity in which ILSI sought to exploit the credibility of scientists and academics to bolster industry positions and promote industry-devised content in its meetings, journal and other activities. ILSI also actively seeks to marginalise unfavourable positions.Conclusions: We conclude that undue influence of industry through third-party entities like ILSI requires enhanced management of conflicts of interest by researchers. We call for ILSI to be recognised as a private sector entity rather than an independent scientific non-profit, to allow for more appropriate appraisal of its outputs and those it funds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]