Asthma is not Enough: Continuation of Smoking Among Parents with an Asthmatic Child
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ideally, on diagnosis of asthma in a child, parents are counselled to decrease environmental tobacco smoke exposure to their children. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a diagnosis of asthma in children altered parental smoking behaviour toward a reduction in environmental tobacco smoke exposure. METHODS: In 2002/2003, a survey was sent to 12,556 households with children born in 1995 in Manitoba. Parents were asked whether their seven-year-old child had asthma, and whether smokers were present in the home in 1995 and/or currently. The likelihood (OR) of a change in parental smoking behaviour was determined according to the presence of asthma in their child, a family history of asthma, the location of residence (rural or urban) and their socioeconomic status. RESULTS: A total of 3580 surveys (28.5%) were returned. The overall prevalence of parental smoking in 1995 and 2002/2003 was 32.2% and 23.4%, respectively (31.9%/23.2% and 32.3%/23.6% in rural and urban environments, respectively). In 2002/2003, the prevalence of parental smoking in homes with asthmatic children was 29.8%. Parents were not more likely to quit smoking (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.54) or smoke outside (OR=1.02, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.83) if their child developed asthma. Parental smoking behaviour (quit smoking or smoked outside) did not change if there was a positive family history of asthma (OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37), if they lived in a rural or urban location (OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.23), or if they were from a low- or high-income household (OR=1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of altering parental smoking behaviour occurred independently of a diagnosis of asthma in their child, a family history of asthma, the location of residence and their socioeconomic status.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".