Prevalence and correlates of electronic cigarette use among Canadian students: cross-sectional findings from the 2014/15 Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, youth tobacco use has declined, and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have entered the market. The aims of this study were to describe the prevalence of e-cigarette use among youth in Canada, by province, across sociodemographic variables and smoking-related correlates; and to examine associations among e-cigarette use, sociodemographic variables and smoking-related correlates, with adjustment for other factors. METHODS: The 2014/15 Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey, a biennial, school-based survey, was administered to students in grades 6-12 in all Canadian provinces. Logistic regression models were fitted to estimate odds of ever and past 30-day e-cigarette use by sociodemographic variables and smoking-related correlates. RESULTS: A total of 336 schools from 128 school boards (47% of eligible schools approached) and 42 094 students (66% of eligible students approached) participated in the survey. In Canada, 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.4%-18.9%) of students in grades 6-12 reported ever using e-cigarettes, and 5.7% (95% CI 5.2%-6.3%) reported past 30-day use. Substantial variation was observed across provinces. Female students had decreased odds of past 30-day use relative to male students (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.86), whereas current smokers (OR 10.0, 95% CI 6.66-15.02) and experimental smokers (OR 3.61, 95% CI 2.40-5.42) had increased odds relative to never smokers. Students who perceived that access was easy also had increased odds of using e-cigarettes relative to students who perceived that access was difficult (OR 3.86, 95% CI 2.96-5.03). Students who believed that regular use entailed slight risk (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.88) and those who did not know risk levels (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21-0.46) had decreased odds compared with those perceiving no risk. INTERPRETATION: Our data confirm that many youth used e-cigarettes in the 30 days preceding the survey, although rates were substantially higher among current and experimental smokers than among students who had never tried smoking.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".