Cross-country comparison of smokers' reasons for thinking about quitting over time: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey (ITC-4C), 2002–2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore between-country differences and within-country trends over time in smokers' reasons for thinking about quitting and the relationship between reasons and making a quit attempt. METHODS: Participants were nationally representative samples of adult smokers from the UK (N=4717), Canada (N=4884), the USA (N=6703) and Australia (N=4482), surveyed as part of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey between 2002 and 2015. Generalised estimating equations were used to evaluate differences among countries in smokers' reasons for thinking about quitting and their association with making a quit attempt at follow-up wave. RESULTS: Smokers' concern for personal health was consistently the most frequently endorsed reason for thinking about quitting in each country and across waves, and was most strongly associated with making a quit attempt. UK smokers were less likely than their counterparts to endorse health concerns, but were more likely to endorse medication and quitline availability reasons. Canadian smokers endorsed the most reasons, and smokers in the USA and Australia increased in number of reasons endorsed over the course of the study period. Endorsement of health warnings, and perhaps price, appears to peak in the year or so after the change is introduced, whereas other responses were not immediately linked to policy changes. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in reasons for thinking about quitting exist among smokers in countries with different histories of tobacco control policies. Health concern is consistently the most common reason for quitting and the strongest predictor of future attempts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".