Research identifies that multinational corporations, including The Coca-Cola Company (‘Coca-Cola’), seek to influence public health research and policy through scientific events, such as academic and professional conferences. This study aims to understand how different forms of funding and sponsorship impact the relationship between Coca-Cola, academic institutions, public health organisations, academics and researchers.

The study was conducted using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and systematic website searches.

Data were collected by twenty-two FOI requests to institutions in the USA and UK, resulting in the disclosure of 11 488 pages, including emails and attachments relating to 239 events between 2009 and 2018. We used the Wayback Machine to review historical website data to evaluate evidence from 151 available official conference websites.

N/A

Documents suggest that Coca-Cola provides direct financial support to institutions and organisations hosting events in exchange for benefits, including influence over proceedings. Coca-Cola also provided direct financial support to speakers and researchers, sometimes conditional on media interviews. Also, indirect financial support passed through Coca-Cola-financed non-profits. Often, such financial support was not readily identifiable, and third-party involvement further concealed Coca-Cola funding.

Coca-Cola exerts direct influence on academic institutions and organisations that convene major public health conferences and events. These events offer Coca-Cola a vehicle for its messaging and amplifying viewpoints favourable to Coca-Cola’s interests. Such corporate-sponsored events should be viewed as instruments of industry marketing. Stronger rules and safeguards are needed to prevent hidden industry influence, such as complete disclosure of all corporate contributions for public health conferences and their speakers.

Emergency response relies on the assumption that essential health care services will continue to operate and be available to provide quality patient care during and after a patient surge. The observed successes and failures of health care systems during recent mass-casualty events and the concern that these assumptions are not evidence based prompted this review.

The aims of this systematic review were to explore the factors associated with the intention of health care personnel (HCP) to respond to uncommon events, such as a natural disaster or pandemic, determine the state of the science, and bolster evidence-based measures that have been shown to facilitate staff response.

Authors of the 70 studies (five mixed-methods, 49 quantitative, 16 qualitative) that met inclusion criteria reported a variety of variables that influenced the intent of HCP to respond. Current evidence suggests that four primary factors emerged as either facilitating or hindering the willingness of HCP to respond to an event: (1) the nature of the event; (2) competing obligations; (3) the work environment and climate; and (4) the relationship between knowledge and perceptions of efficacy.

Findings of this study could influence and strengthen policy making by emergency response planners, staffing coordinators, health educators, and health system administrators.

ConnorSB . When and Why Health Care Personnel Respond to a Disaster: The State of the Science. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(3):1-5.