Differences in Quit Attempts and Cigarette Smoking Abstinence Between Whites and African Americans in the United States: Literature Review and Results From the International Tobacco Control US Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While cigarette smoking prevalence is declining among US adults, quit rates may differ between white and African American smokers. Here, we summarize the literature on smoking cessation behaviors in whites and African Americans across four study designs and report the findings of new analyses of International Tobacco Control (ITC) US Survey cohort data. METHODS: We reviewed 32 publications containing 39 relevant analyses that compared quit attempts and abstinence between US whites and African Americans. Two additional longitudinal analyses were conducted on 821 white and 76 African American cigarette smokers from Waves 7 and 8 of the ITC US Survey (mean follow-up = 19 months). RESULTS: Of 17 total analyses of quit attempts, nine (including the ITC US Survey) observed that African American smokers were more likely than whites to attempt to quit during a given year; seven found no differences. Whites were more likely than African Americans to be abstinent in five of six retrospective cohort analyses and in two of five considered community- and population-based cohort studies. Four of these 11 analyses, including one from the ITC US Survey, found no differences. CONCLUSIONS: Of 11 population- or community-based analyses, all seven that found significant differences indicated that whites were more likely to quit than African Americans. These findings, combined with the similar results from population-based birth cohort analyses, support the conclusion that white smokers are more likely to quit than African American smokers. Efforts to encourage and support quitting among all tobacco users remain a priority. IMPLICATIONS: This article provides a review of the literature on smoking cessation among African American and white smokers, and adds new analyses that compare quit attempts and abstinence between US African Americans and whites. Results demonstrate a clear distinction between the findings of cross-sectional and retrospective cohort studies with those of cohort studies. Reasons for these differences merit further study.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".