Prevalence and characteristics of flavoured tobacco use among students in grades 10 through 12: a national cross-sectional study in Canada, 2012–2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in Canada and the world. Despite documented decreases in the prevalence of smoking in Canada, increases in flavoured tobacco use by its youth poses a serious public health concern. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of flavoured tobacco use among a national sample of Canadian students in grades 10 through 12. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional design on a nationally generalizable, school-based, Youth Smoking Survey (YSS), 2012-2013. It incorporated data from a representative sample of 19,979 students in grades 10-12 from across Canada. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine differences in flavoured tobacco use (menthol cigarettes, flavoured little cigar or cigarillo, flavoured cigar, flavoured tobacco in water pipe [hookah]) by demographic (sex, grade and ethnicity) and social characteristics (friends, siblings, parents/guardians who are smokers and weekly personal spending money). RESULTS: This study found that 14.8% of the participating students used flavoured tobacco in the past 30-days. Results of the logistic regression analysis show that flavoured tobacco use was significantly higher among male students [(OR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.36-1.95)], who had at least one friend or sibling who smoke [(OR = 2.20; CI = 1.62 to 2.99) and (OR = 1.51; CI = 1.22 to 1.88), respectively] and who received greater than $20/week in personal spending money [(OR = 1.76; CI = 1.26 to 2.45)]. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study indicate that flavoured tobacco use is a growing public health concern and has a strong appeal among youth in Canada. This is a particularly troubling finding, especially in light of the fact that there is a national ban on certain flavoured tobacco products. To be effective, strategies specifically tailored for youth using flavoured tobacco would require appropriate educational/prevention initiatives, more comprehensive legislation and better regulatory mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".