Tobacco and alcohol consumption in post-Soviet Ukraine: qualitative findings from community consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study focuses on a variety of social determinants of alcohol and tobacco consumption, which have been reported as an alarming epidemic in the post-Soviet Ukraine. Authors look at the intersections of social determinants of tobacco and alcohol use in Ukraine as perceived by the study participants, and their perception of structural effects of economic and cultural transition on the prevalence of these harmful lifestyles.METHODS: This study is part of a mixed-methods research, informed by an intersectional framework, focusing on complex health and health care experiences of Ukrainians. This study uses findings from 21 community consultations in 11 regions, corresponding to Ukraine’s diverse demographics, culture, and geography. At these consultations, participants discussed their health, experiences in seeking healthcare and provided recommendations for healthcare reforms.RESULTS: The study identifies the important demographic factors like age, gender, SES, and place of residence, and how their intersections influence tobacco and alcohol consumption in Ukraine. People of lower SES have reportedly higher rates of consuming alcohol and tobacco, but younger individuals of low SES are most affected by these unhealthy lifestyles. The study also points to broader structural factors, such as stress, unemployment, poor law enforcement, poor social support, lack of health promotion, features of the built environment, and tobacco and alcohol availability, which affect the uptake of unhealthy behaviors.CONCLUSIONS: The community consultations revealed people’s perceptions about the complex nature of tobacco and alcohol consumption in the post-Soviet setting. People shared their concern about the vulnerability of certain social groups to using alcohol and tobacco, and their understanding of the detrimental effects these substances have on the health of these groups. This intersectionality-based study concludes that there is a need to look beyond individual demographics and consider how social factors intersecting between themselves, as well as individual demographic factors, affect outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".