Search

• Small doses of alcohol may or may not benefit cardiovascular disease (CVD). • Alcohol industry actors have been involved in review-level evidence, generating concerns. • Industry funding is not a major determinant of co-authorship in alcohol and CVD. • Conflicting findings on alcohol and CVD may be due to industry funding bias. • Progress in this area has implications for alcohol public health science and policy. Alcohol's effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) are controversial. Alcohol industry actors have shown particular interest in this subject, and been extensively involved through research funding, and in other ways, generating concerns about bias, particularly in reviews. We conducted a co-authorship network analysis of the primary studies included within a previous co-authorship study of 60 systematic reviews on the impact of alcohol on CVD. Additionally, we examined the relationships between declared alcohol industry funding and network structure. There were 713 unique primary studies with 2832 authors published between 1969 and 2019 located within 229 co-authorship subnetworks. There was industry funding across subnetworks and approximately 8% of all papers declared industry funding. The largest subnetwork dominated, comprising 43% of all authors, with sparse evidence of substantial industry funding. The second largest subnetwork contained approximately 4% of all authors, with largely different industry funders involved. Harvard affiliated authors who at the review level formed co-authorship subnetworks with industry funded authors were seen at the primary study level to belong to the largest epidemiological subnetwork. A small number of key authors make extensive alcohol industry funding declarations. There was no straightforward relationship between co-authorship network formation and alcohol industry funding of epidemiological studies on alcohol and CVD. More fine-grained attention to patterns of alcohol industry funding and to key nodes may shed further light on how far industry funding may be responsible for conflicting findings on alcohol and CVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The present paper reviews literature on problematic social media use in children and adolescents. • The Who-, Why-, How-questions around (problematic) social media use are highlighted. • Recommendations on the topic are provided. At the time of writing, about 4.59 billion people use social media with many adolescents using their social media accounts across a myriad of applications and platforms. According to recent statistics, in 2022 individuals spent an average of 151 minutes on social media each day, illustrating the global relevance of social media (Dixon, 2022a,b). One of the pressing questions, internationally, is whether social media use is harmful and/or addictive. This question is of particular importance because many teenagers - and younger adolescents - spend considerable time on these platforms, which have increasingly become an integral part of their lives. Moreover, considering lifespan development, adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to specific features and advertisements shown to them on social media platforms. Growing prevalence of poor mental health in young people has led to recent recommendations in the United States to routinely screen for anxiety in 8-18 year olds, and for depression and suicide risk for adolescents between 12-18 years of age (US Preventive Services Task Force et al., 2022 a,b) – the conditions often accompanying problematic social media use. The present work not only provides insights into the current state of the literature but provides also recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]