Smoking behaviours among heterosexual and sexual minority youth? Findings from 15 years of provincially representative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Sexual identity disparities in smoking behaviours are well established; however, there is limited research on whether these disparities have diminished as the social and political landscape has changed for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Thus, we examined changes in prevalence and sexual identity disparities in three smoking behaviours among Canadian adolescents from 1998 to 2013. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data are from the provincially representative British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey (N = 99 373). Using sex-stratified, age-adjusted logistic regression models, we estimated: (i) trends in lifetime cigarette use, early onset, and past 30-day use for heterosexual and three subgroups of sexual minority (i.e. mostly heterosexual, bisexual and gay/lesbian) youth; (ii) sexual identity disparities in these cigarette-related behaviours within each survey year (1998, 2003, 2008, 2013); and (iii) whether the size of the disparity has changed from 1998 to 2013. RESULTS: Smoking has declined for all youth from 1998 to 2013, although less consistently for sexual minority youth. Within-year disparity estimates indicated elevated prevalence of cigarette use for sexual minority compared to heterosexual youth, particularly among females. Trends in sexual identity and smoking behaviours indicated that the degree of differences between heterosexual and sexual minority youth have remained stable or, in some cases, widened. Heterosexual and sexual minority youth differences widened for early onset among sexual minority boys and lifetime and past 30-day use for sexual minority girls. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to prevent smoking behaviours among youth should continue. Tailored preventive strategies for sexual minority youth might help address existing disparities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".