{
  "abstract": "Background The alcohol industry shapes policy and public narratives through their strategic engagement with research. Spiking – giving someone alcohol or another drug without their consent or knowledge – has recently re-emerged as a source of public health concern amongst the UK public, the police and Government. This concern represents a reputational threat to the alcohol industry (AI) by linking alcohol consumption with vulnerability and harm.We aimed to investigate how AI-funded organisations have used evidential claims to frame drink spiking, and its public health implications.Methods We conducted a critical appraisal and discourse analysis of research commissioned in 2021 by the Alcohol Education Trust (AET) and DrinkAware. Both organisations undertook surveys to establish the prevalence and nature of spiking which we appraised used the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme’s checklist for cross-sectional studies. DrinkAware also commissioned a venue survey, evaluation of drink testing kits , and urine and drinks testing.We analysed the resulting research reports, associated press releases and coverage in the written media, identified via the NewsBank database. Critical discourse analysis – informed by feminist approaches and Commercial Determinants frameworks – was conducted. Data were managed in NVivo.Results Serious methodological flaws and reporting errors were identified in the AET survey (n=747). Drinkaware’s prevalence survey methods were found to be more robust (n=16,791). Both organisation’s press releases contained similar messaging that spiking can happen to any drink, anyone and anywhere, a questionable interpretation of their reported data.Thirty-two documents were included in the critical discourse analysis. Both organisations included alcohol when describing spiking but subsequent framing – via the text and imagery used – steered towards spiking with drugs. Individual-level responses such as testing and reporting were foregrounded over preventative and structural measures.Conclusion AI-funded organisations are misrepresenting and overstating their evidence on spiking with the very low-quality Talk About Trust survey widely covered in the UK media and cited as evidence at the House of Commons inquiry.Characterising spiking based on low-quality research and/or incomplete reporting may cause public harm by misrepresenting its true nature, the effectiveness of proposed responses and deflecting from the substantively larger issue, alcohol consumption itself.Whilst our methodological limitations include the small sample size, this study provides a novel example of the strategic use of research by health harming industry-funded organisations to mould public and policy opinion on a current public health concern.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Dept of Public Health, Environments and Society, LSHTM, London, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Alice Tompson"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Global Health Policy Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK"
      ],
      "name": "May van Schalkwyk"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Dept of Health Services Research and Policy, LSHTM, London, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Cecile Knai"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Global Health Policy Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Nason Maani"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Dept of Public Health, Environments and Society, LSHTM, London, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Mark Petticrew"
    }
  ],
  "title": "OP49 ‘Any drink, anyone, anywhere’? A critical analysis of alcohol industry linked research on drink spiking",
  "uid": "30917186-552e-5a94-8f65-6aafa2f09a68"
}