Diane T. Finegood, PhD

1
CIHR Workshop on an Ethics Policy
for Partnerships with the Private
Sector General Principles

• Diane T. Finegood, PhD
• Scientific Director
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research
• Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
• Professor, School of Kinesiology
• Simon Fraser University

March 2007
2
Perspective

• Focused on obesity and chronic disease
• As a researcher, earned as a consultant to
  pharma (pre-CIHR)
• Engaged in CIHRs first partnership with food
  industry (Canada on the Move)
• Held think tank on collaboration with the food
  industry
• Planning a meeting on Building Trust

3
What was Canada on the Move?

• COTM was a platform for
• Knowledge development
• Knowledge exchange
• Public information
• Partnership / Collaboration

4
Partnership with the Food Industry
January 2004
5
Call to Action
Walk, log on and donate your steps to health
research at www.canadaonthemove.ca. The steps you
record each time you visit will help make a
difference in the health of our nation. Take part
in Canada on the Move, a national research
project organized by the Canadian Institutes on
Health Research.
6
(No Transcript)
7
Platform for Public Information

• Message distribution radio, tv, internet, comics
• Nationally representative Physical Activity
  Monitor
• Those aware of Canada on the Move and 2 related
  specific messages were almost 4 times as likely
  to have worn a pedometer in the last week as
  those unaware of the campaign
• Participants predominantly overweight,
  middle-aged women (the target group for most of
  the message distribution)

8
COTM A Novel Research Platform

• Competitive process identified researchers to
• design the website
• analyze the data
• 5 separate research projects
• 8 papers
• Results published in a Canadian Journal of Public
  Health Supplement (March/April 2006)

9
Supplement Paper Topics

• Commentary public-private partnerships
• Research capacity partnership
• Pedometer quality
• Media analysis
• Campaign awareness
• Participant characteristics
• Perceived neighborhood correlates
• Postscript lessons learned

CJPH (March/April) 2006
10
Key Findings of COTM (1.1)
Craig, C. et al. CJPH (March/April) 2006
11
Key Findings of COTM (2)
Tudor-Locke, C. et al. CJPH (March/April) 2006
12
For-Profit Collaborators
13
Platform for Multi-Sector Collaboration
Non-Governmental Org (n94)
Academic (n25)
Unclassified (n28)
For-profit (n30)
Government (n42)
Rose and Finegood. CJPH (March/April) 2006
14
Platform for Knowledge Exchange Between Sectors
Rose and Finegood. CJPH (March/April) 2006
15
Public Private Partnership

• Significant experience gained
• Most stakeholders reported positive views of the
  evolution and management of the collaboration
  with the private sector
• Risk of negative perception
• Formal linkages to social advertising
  (private-sector led campaigns with potential for
  social benefit) are challenging

Cameron R et al. CJPH (March/April) 2006
16
Think-Tank on Intersectoral Collaboration (Sept
2005)

• Depend on creating/responding to opportunities.
• Strength due to complimentary expertise.
• Effectiveness depends on
• Continuous, honest, open communication
• Respect
• Clearly stated / agreed to long-term objectives
  and goals
• Time to devote to the collaboration
• Trust No hidden agendas, absence of mistrust,
  transparency in stakeholder intentions

17
Think-Tank Issues and Constraints

• Communication must be strong at the beginning and
  continually confirm agreements every step of the
  way.
• Communication can be hindered by differences in
  language, assumptions, and meanings, despite good
  intentions on both sides.
• Non-industry participants, saw working with
  industry as high risk.

18
Think-Tank Issues and Constraints

• Those with experience in inter-sectoral
  collaborations
• most difficult issues were often different from
  those they would have predicted.
• Those without experience in inter-sectoral
  collaborations
• concerned about remaining in control of the
  outcomes of the collaboration.

19
Ethical Risk Areas

• Reputation
• Protecting respective brands
• Cultural
• Speak different languages
• Different approach to managing outcomes/communicat
  ions
• Governance Accountability Systems
• Not well established at time and in real time
• Conflicting Mandate, Interests, Priorities
• Sales vs social marketing