Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards smoking among people with migration experience: a global scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards smoking have been extensively researched across diverse populations with migration experience. The objective of this scoping review was to understand the extent, type, and geographical distribution of the published literature on smoking among people with migration experience across the globe. Methods We conducted a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Supported by two information specialists, we performed a comprehensive literature search (from 2012- 17 January 2024) in five databases, without language or geographic restrictions. The search yielded 8,400 potentially relevant records after deduplication. After title and abstract screening, 305 full texts were included for descriptive analysis and out of these, 25 that covered all three aspects (knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour) were included for content analysis. Results The review identified a predominance of quantitative studies (87%), with a smaller proportion of qualitative (12%) and mixed-methods studies (2%). Most studies focused on behavioural prevalence related to tobacco and nicotine product consumption, with 72% addressing behaviours specifically, though only a subset (26%) focused directly on tobacco and/or nicotine use among migrants. Geographical analysis revealed that most of the research originated from high-income countries in particular the USA (n = 126), Canada (n = 32), and Germany (n = 20), with notable gaps in regions with significant migrant populations, such as Saudi Arabia (n = 1). Among the 25 KAB-focused studies, data collection was based on surveys (52%), interviews (40%), and focus groups (28%). Findings showed varying knowledge of tobacco harms, shaped by socio-economic status, acculturation, and health literacy. Attitudes were influenced by culture and religion, while smoking behaviours were driven by gender, stress, peer influence, and migration-related pressures. Terminology varied across studies, with inconsistent definitions for key terms "migrants" and "immigrants," complicating comparisons between populations and countries. Definitions of tobacco products also varied across studies. Conclusions This scoping review reveals significant gaps in research on migrants' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards tobacco and nicotine consumption, including a lack of qualitative studies, inconsistent terminology, and a geographic focus on high-income countries. Addressing these gaps through expanded research in underrepresented regions and standardising terminology is essential for developing culturally relevant public health strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,084 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».