Science or advocacy? The global rise of policy claims and calls to action in population health research (1990-2024)
Abstract
Should original research articles routinely contain prominent policy claims or broad calls to action? Growing emphasis on research impact might be welcome yet have unintended consequences (eg, incentivizing overextrapolation and undermining the perceived objectivity of scientists). We examined 45 807 abstracts from 10 leading Epidemiology and Public Health journals (1990-2024). Using a large language model with human validation, we classified policy claims and mapped trends. Claims markedly increased from 17.6% to 35.8%, with wide variation across countries and journals (>60% vs <4%). Keywords linked to higher claim rates differed by topic and time: some corresponded to topics with clear causal evidence of harm as well as topics with notable advocacy. Claims were most common in qualitative or cross-sectional studies, and less common in cohort, quasi-experimental, or experimental studies. We argue that these patterns reflect a research culture increasingly oriented toward claiming policy relevance—and incentives that encourage attaching claims to single studies. Our findings raise questions about how scientists and journals balance evidence, advocacy, and scientific credibility. Ensuring that policy claims and calls to action remain commensurate with evidence will be central to building trust as policy impact continues to be incentivized.
Related
- Co-creation in research, policy engagement and advocacy: Lessons and limits from two decades of practice at the African Population and Health Research Center
- Advocacy and policy leadership training for primary care: a global environmental scan of competency frameworks, interventions, and strategic priorities
- Using Science, Advocacy, and a Global Village to Change Body Image and Prevent Eating Disorders: An Invited Narrative Review of the Body Project
- Understanding the Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Purpose, Content, and Science-Policy Engagement
- Groundwater-dependent ecosystems are missing from global research and policy agendas
BibTeX
@article{bann2026science,
title = {{Science or advocacy? The global rise of policy claims and calls to action in population health research (1990-2024)}},
author = {David Bann and Mengyao Wang and Neil M Davies and Liam Wright and Meredith O’Connor and Emilie Courtin},
journal = {American Journal of Epidemiology},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.1093/aje/kwag196},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwag196},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Science or advocacy? The global rise of policy claims and calls to action in population health research (1990-2024)
AU - David Bann
AU - Mengyao Wang
AU - Neil M Davies
AU - Liam Wright
AU - Meredith O’Connor
AU - Emilie Courtin
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/14
JO - American Journal of Epidemiology
DO - 10.1093/aje/kwag196
UR - https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwag196
AB - Should original research articles routinely contain prominent policy claims or broad calls to action? Growing emphasis on research impact might be welcome yet have unintended consequences (eg, incentivizing overextrapolation and undermining the perceived objectivity of scientists). We examined 45 807 abstracts from 10 leading Epidemiology and Public Health journals (1990-2024). Using a large language model with human validation, we classified policy claims and mapped trends. Claims markedly increased from 17.6% to 35.8%, with wide variation across countries and journals (>60% vs <4%). Keywords linked to higher claim rates differed by topic and time: some corresponded to topics with clear causal evidence of harm as well as topics with notable advocacy. Claims were most common in qualitative or cross-sectional studies, and less common in cohort, quasi-experimental, or experimental studies. We argue that these patterns reflect a research culture increasingly oriented toward claiming policy relevance—and incentives that encourage attaching claims to single studies. Our findings raise questions about how scientists and journals balance evidence, advocacy, and scientific credibility. Ensuring that policy claims and calls to action remain commensurate with evidence will be central to building trust as policy impact continues to be incentivized.
SN - 0002-9262
SN - 1476-6256
ER -