Science or Advocacy? The Global Rise of Policy Claims and Calls to Action in Population Health Research (1990-2024)

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, incentivising overextrapolation, and undermining the perceived objectivity of scientists). We examined 45 807 abstracts from ten 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 incentivised.