Quit history, intentions to quit, and reasons for considering quitting among tobacco users in India: Findings from the Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation India Wave 1 Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global Adult Tobacco Survey India 2009-2010 revealed that more than one-third (35%) of adults in India use tobacco in some form: 21% use smokeless tobacco, 9% smoke, and 5% are mixed users (they smoke and use smokeless tobacco), and the quit rate is very low. In an effort to decrease prevalence of tobacco use, it is thus important to understand the factors that are related to intention to quit among Indian tobacco users. Research has shown consistently that intention to quit is a strong predictor of future quitting. The present study reports the factors encouraging quitting tobacco products in India. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional data from Wave 1 of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation India Survey conducted in four cities and surrounding rural areas (i.e. Mumbai [Maharashtra], Patna [Bihar], Indore [Madhya Pradesh], and Kolkata [West Bengal]) between August 2010 and December 2011 were analyzed. A total of 8051 tobacco users (15+ years) were randomly sampled from 8586 households: 1255 smokers, 5991 smokeless users, and 805 mixed (smoke and smokeless) users. Validated, standardized questions were asked about current tobacco use, intention to quit, and factors encouraging quitting. RESULTS: Overall, 19.6% of tobacco users intended to quit. Smokers had less intention to quit as compared to smokeless tobacco users whereas mixed users had more intention to quit (odds ratio [OR] =1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.12-1.97) compared to smokeless tobacco users. Highly educated people were more likely to report intention to quit (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.09-3.02) compared to less educated. Advice by doctors to quit tobacco had a strong impact on intention to quit (OR = 1.68, CI = 1.29-2.15). Tobacco users who were exposed to antitobacco messages at work places (OR = 1.74, CI = 1.23-2.46), at restaurants (OR = 1.65, CI = 1.12-2.43), bars (OR = 1.81, CI = 1.07-3.06), on public transportation (OR = 2.14, CI = 1.49-3.08) and on tobacco packages (OR = 1.77, CI = 1.29-2.14) also expressed greater intention to quit tobacco use. CONCLUSION: Around one-fifth of tobacco users in India intended to quit tobacco use. Higher education, doctor's advice, and antitobacco messages were positively associated with users' intention to quit tobacco.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".