MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951486167 · doi:10.1136/bmj.l2231

Cigarette consumption estimates for 71 countries from 1970 to 2015: systematic collection of comparable data to facilitate quasi-experimental evaluations of national and global tobacco control interventions

2019· article· en· W2951486167 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven J. Hoffman, Jessica Mammone, Susan Rogers Van Katwyk, Lathika Sritharan, Maxwell Tran, Safa Al-Khateeb, A M Grjibovski, Elliot Gunn, Sara Kamali-Anaraki, Ben Li, Mathura Mahendren, Yasmeen Mansoor, Navneet Natt, Ejike Nwokoro, Harkanwal Randhawa, Melodie Yunju Song, Kelsey A. Vercammen, Carolyne Wang, Julia Woo, Mathieu J. P. Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchImpactMcMaster UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNorges ForskningsrådGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Data collectionData qualityTobacco controlEnvironmental healthPopulationMedicineMetric (unit)BusinessPublic healthStatisticsMathematicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To collect, appraise, select, and report the best available national estimates of cigarette consumption since 1970. DESIGN: Systematic collection of comparable data. SETTING AND POPULATION: 71 of 214 countries for which searches for national cigarette consumption data were conducted, representing over 95% of global cigarette consumption and 85% of the world's population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validated cigarette consumption data covering 1970-2015 were identified for 71 countries. Data quality appraisal was conducted by two research team members in duplicate, with greatest weight given to official government sources. All data were standardised into units of cigarettes consumed per year in each country, a detailed accounting of data quality and sourcing was prepared, and all collected data and metadata were made freely available in an open access dataset. RESULTS: Cigarette consumption fell in most countries over the past three decades but trends in country specific consumption were highly variable. For example, China consumed 2.5 million metric tonnes (MMT) of cigarettes in 2013, more than Russia (0.36 MMT), the United States (0.28 MMT), Indonesia (0.28 MMT), Japan (0.20 MMT), and the next 35 highest consuming countries combined. The US and Japan achieved reductions of more than 0.1 MMT from a decade earlier, whereas Russian consumption plateaued, and Chinese and Indonesian consumption increased by 0.75 MMT and 0.1 MMT, respectively. These data generally concord with modelled country level data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and have the additional advantage of not smoothing year-over-year discontinuities that are necessary for robust quasi-experimental impact evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Before this study, publicly available data on cigarette consumption have been limited; they have been inappropriate for quasi-experimental impact evaluations (modelled data), held privately by companies (proprietary data), or widely dispersed across many national statistical agencies and research organisations (disaggregated data). This new dataset confirms that cigarette consumption has decreased in most countries over the past three decades, but that secular country specific consumption trends are highly variable. The findings underscore the need for more robust processes in data reporting, ideally built into international legal instruments or other mandated processes. To monitor the impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and other tobacco control interventions, data on national tobacco production, trade, and sales should be routinely collected and openly reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207