Von der Industrie finanzierte Apps zur Alkoholreduzierung enthalten Fehlinformationen. Im Vergleich zu nicht von der Industrie finanzierten Tools, die von nationalen Regierungen oder Gesundheitsdiensten genehmigt wurden, war die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass diese „dunklen Apps“ Benutzer über das erhöhte Krebsrisiko im Zusammenhang mit Alkohol informieren, dreimal geringer

Alcohol industry-funded apps may use covert ‘misinformation strategies’, omit important public health information and could ‘nudge’ users towards drinking more alcohol, new research has found.

The study, led by researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), is the first to analyse digital tools funded by the alcohol industry, which claim to provide alcohol-reduction advice.

The findings are published in Health Promotion International.

It compared 15 web-based or mobile apps promoted by alcohol industry-funded organisations, including Drinkaware, Drinkwise, Cheers! and Educ’Alcool, with 10 digital tools promoted by national governments or healthcare services, such as Drink Free Days from the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). Tools across the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia were included.

The team did not identify misleading information tactics in any nationally-approved tools, whereas all but one alcohol industry-funded tool was found to omit, distract or dilute some risk information. The researchers have labelled these ‘dark apps’ – apps which intentionally distorts a user’s perceived risk of alcohol-related harms without their knowledge, in a direction which is favourable commercially and opposite to the user’s wishes.

The findings suggest that messaging used in industry-funded tools could potentially distort the health information provided and ‘nudge’ users towards increasing their consumption, which the researchers describe as covert ‘misinformation strategies’ and misleading app designs, referred to as ‘dark patterns’.

[https://academic.oup.com/heapro/article-abstract/39/5/daae037/7815633?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false#google_vignette](https://academic.oup.com/heapro/article-abstract/39/5/daae037/7815633?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false#google_vignette)

*Any* company with a vested interest is out there to either deceive you as an individual and us as a collective world. This might not be in the moustache-twirling case described above, it might be in the form of overstating clinical benefit of their product or understating adverse outcomes. There’s a reason analysis of data will sensitivity test industry-sponsored/reported research and independent research separately. Even in instances where they have a fantastic product with undeniable benefit, companies eventually begin stretching truths, p-hacking, nesting adverse event data in other outcomes to hide significance where possible etc.

Constant demonstration of growth is needed for shareholders to remain invested, so there is always pressure to sell more product and expand in markets. This is why fully independent resources and research are so important. Vested interests skew things, sometimes minimally, others massively like here.