Predicting vaping uptake, vaping frequency and ongoing vaping among daily smokers using longitudinal data from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess (1) how far smoking patterns, depression and smoking-related beliefs and intentions predict vaping uptake, current vaping and vaping frequency among daily smokers; and (2) how far the aforementioned predictors and baseline vaping frequency predict current vaping among those who reported ever vaped. DESIGN: Analysis of data from six waves of a longitudinal survey over 8 years. Longitudinal associations between predictors and outcomes were examined using multi-level models. SETTING: United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6296 daily smokers (53% females) who contributed data to at least two consecutive survey waves. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome variables were vaping uptake, vaping frequency and current vaping at follow-up. The key predictor variables, measured in previous waves, were time to first cigarette, cigarettes smoked per day, depressive symptoms, intention to quit smoking, quitting self-efficacy and worry about adverse health effects of smoking. FINDINGS: Number of cigarettes smoked daily was associated with (1) subsequent vaping uptake [odds ratio (OR) = 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.19, 2.39 for 30+ cigarette per day; reference category: 0-10 cigarettes] and (2) a higher frequency of current vaping (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.36, 2.85 for 30+ cigarettes). Intention to quit was associated with a higher frequency of current vaping (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.21, 1.82). Among those who reported ever vaped, higher baseline vaping frequency (OR = 11.98, 95% CI = 6.00, 23.93 for daily vaping at baseline; reference category: vaped less than monthly) predicted current vaping. CONCLUSION: Among daily smokers, amount smoked and intention to quit smoking appear to predict subsequent vaping uptake. Vaping frequency at baseline appears to predict current vaping at follow-up.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".