Social impacts on adult use of tobacco: findings from the International Tobacco Control Project India, Wave 1 Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social impacts on tobacco use have been reported but not well quantified. This study investigated how strongly the use of smoked and smokeless tobacco may be influenced by other users who are close to the respondents. METHODS: The International Tobacco Control Project (TCP), India, used stratified multistage cluster sampling to survey individuals aged ≥15 years in four areas of India about their tobacco use and that of their close associates. The present study used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for tobacco use for each type of close associate. RESULTS: Among the 9780 respondents, tobacco use was significantly associated with their close associates' (father's, mother's, friends', spouse's) tobacco use in the same form. After adjusting for confounding variables, women smokers were nine times more likely to have a mother who ever smoked (OR: 9.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.3-24.7) and men smokers five times more likely (OR: 5.4; 95% CI: 2.1-14.1) than non-smokers. Men smokers were seven times more likely to have close friends who smoked (OR: 7.2; 95% CI: 5.6-9.3). Users of smokeless tobacco (SLT) were five times more likely to have friends who used SLT (OR: 5.3; 95% CI: 4.4-6.3 [men]; OR: 5.0; 95% CI: 4.3-5.9 [women]) and four times more likely to have a spouse who used SLT (OR: 4.1; 95% CI: 3.0-5.8 [men]; OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 3.6-5.3 [women]), than non-users. The ORs for the association of the individuals' tobacco use, whether smoked or smokeless, increased with the number of close friends using it in the same form. CONCLUSION: The influence of family members and friends on tobacco use needs to be appropriately addressed in tobacco-control interventions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".