Rules about smoking and vaping in the home: findings from the 2016 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine rules about smoking and vaping in the home in relation to beliefs about the relative harm of second-hand vapor (SHV) compared with second-hand smoke (SHS) in four countries: Canada, United States, England and Australia. DESIGN: Data were available from 12 294 adults (18+) who participated in the 2016 (wave 1) International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV1) Survey. PARTICIPANTS: All participants were current or recent former adult smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Data were analyzed by weighted logistic regression on rules about smoking and vaping in the home; odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were reported, adjusted for demographic and behavioral variables. FINDINGS: Of all respondents, 37.4% allowed smoking inside their home. Among a subset who were current vapers (n = 6135), 60.4% allowed vaping in their homes. After controlling for demographic and behavioral characteristics, beliefs about the harm of SHV compared with SHS was not associated with allowing smoking in the home, but was associated with allowing vaping in the home [odds ratio (OR) = 2.86 in Canada, OR = 1.82 in the United States and OR = 1.68 in England]. Characteristics that were associated with rules about vaping inside the home included daily vaping (OR = 2.95, 2.04-4.26; OR = 7.00, 4.12-11.87; OR = 5.50, 3.40-8.88; OR = 7.78, 1.90-31.80), living with a spouse who vapes (OR = 2.48, 1.54-3.98; OR = 2.69, 1.42-5.11; OR = 4.67, 2.74-7.95; OR = 21.82, 2.16-220.9) and living with children aged under 18 years (OR = 0.50, 0.37-0.68; OR = 0.89, 0.48-1.65; OR = 0.76, 0.53-1.09; OR = 0.26, = 0.11-0.61) in Canada, the United States, England and Australia, respectively. Similar characteristics were associated with rules about smoking inside the home. CONCLUSIONS: Among current and former smokers in 2016 in Canada, the United States, England and Australia, 37.4% allowed smoking in the home; 60.4% of current vapers allowed vaping. Both concurrent users and exclusive vapers were more likely to allow vaping than smoking inside the home. Allowing vaping inside the home was correlated with the belief that second-hand vapor is less harmful than second-hand smoke.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".