MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137596638 · doi:10.1155/2015/313692

The Epidemiology of Tobacco Use among Khat Users: A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W2137596638 on OpenAlexaff
Saba Kassim, Mohammed Jawad, Ray Croucher, Elie A. Akl

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsKhatTobacco useMedicineEnvironmental healthEpidemiologyObservational studyPsychological interventionCross-sectional studyConsumption (sociology)Traditional medicinePsychiatryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Khat, an "amphetamine-like green leaf," may influence the consumption of tobacco. This study reviews the epidemiology of tobacco use among khat users. Electronic database searches using appropriate keywords/terms were conducted to identify observational studies of khat use. Assessment of quality and risk of bias of all included studies was conducted, and the results were synthesised descriptively. Nine eligible cross-sectional studies were identified. All assessed self-reported tobacco among khat users and were carried out in Africa and the Middle East. Eight reported cigarettes and one reported waterpipes as the mode of use. Methods of tobacco use prevalence assessment varied. Prevalence of "current" tobacco use among students and university teachers ranged from 29 to 37%; "lifetime" tobacco use in university teachers was 58% and "undefined" tobacco use in nonspecific adults and students ranged from 17 to 78%. Daily tobacco use among adults was reported as 17% whilst simultaneous tobacco and khat use was reported as between 14 and 30% in students. In conclusion, tobacco prevalence among khat users appears significant. Findings should be interpreted cautiously due to self-reported tobacco use, diversity in questions assessing tobacco use, and type of tobacco consumption. Future research should address the methodological shortcomings identified in this review before appropriate policy interventions can be developed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.583
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.034 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207