Methodological systematic review of studies on social inequalities in smoking among young adults: A field coming of age?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic circumstances are critically important to addressing smoking. In young adulthood (ages 18-25), dynamic transitions in education, employment, family and housing complicate the measurement of socioeconomic circumstances. To better understand approaches to capturing these circumstances, this methodological systematic review examined how socioeconomic characteristics used to identify social inequalities in smoking among young adults are measured. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, ERIC and Sociological Abstracts, and used three prior reviews. We updated the search in March 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened peer-reviewed records from OECD countries published in English, French, German or Spanish after 1995 whose samples covered at least 1 year between the ages of 18 and 25. We included 89 of 1320 records. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted study characteristics, indicators used to operationalise socioeconomic circumstances and each indicator's relation to results on smoking (ie, significance and direction). We found 39 indicators of socioeconomic circumstances related to six broad domains. These indicators were used in 425 results. DATA SYNTHESIS: We descriptively analysed the extracted data using evidence tables. Educational attainment was most common. Evidence of inequalities varied by indicator used. For example, there was inconsistent evidence regarding the role of parental characteristics and transition stages and insufficient evidence regarding personal income on smoking. CONCLUSION: Despite its importance, studies have disproportionally examined inequalities among young adults using traditional indicators. The mismatch between young adults' life transitions and measurement strategies may attenuate evidence of inequalities. We suggest strategies to improve future measurement.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".