Association between use of contraband tobacco and smoking cessation outcomes: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High tobacco prices, typically achieved through taxation, are an evidence-based strategy to reduce tobacco use. However, the presence of inexpensive contraband tobacco could undermine this effective intervention by providing an accessible alternative to quitting. We assessed whether the use of contraband tobacco negatively affects smoking cessation outcomes. METHODS: We evaluated data from 2786 people who smoked, aged 18 years or older, who participated in the population-based longitudinal Ontario Tobacco Survey. We analyzed associations between use of contraband tobacco and smoking cessation outcomes (attempting to quit, 30-d cessation and long-term cessation at 1 yr follow-up). RESULTS: Compared with people who smoked premium or discount cigarettes, people who reported usually smoking contraband cigarettes at baseline were heavier smokers, perceived greater addiction, identified more barriers to quitting and were more likely to have used pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. People who smoked contraband cigarettes were less likely to report a period of 30-day cessation during the subsequent 6 months (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.61) and 1 year (adjusted RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.61), but they did not differ significantly from other people who smoked regarding attempts to quit (at 6 mo, adjusted RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43-1.20) or long-term cessation (adjusted RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04-1.34). INTERPRETATION: Smoking contraband cigarettes was negatively associated with short-term smoking cessation. Access to contraband tobacco may therefore undermine public health efforts to reduce the use of tobacco at the population level.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".