Social norms for e-cigarettes and smoking: associations with initiation of e-cigarette use, intentions to quit smoking and quit attempts: findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social norms have received little attention in relation to electronic cigarettes (EC). The current study examine social norms for EC use and smoking tobacco, and their associations with (i) initiation of EC use, (ii) intention to quit smoking and (iii) attempts to quit smoking. METHODS: Cross-sectional and longitudinal data analysis from Waves 1 and 2 of the ITC 6 European Country Survey and corresponding waves from England (the ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey). Current smokers at baseline, who heard of ECs and provided data at both waves were included (n = 3702). Complex samples logistic regression examined associations between the outcomes and descriptive (seeing EC use in public, close friends using ECs/smoking) and injunctive (public approves of ECs/smoking) norms, adjusting for country, demographics, EC use and heaviness of smoking. RESULTS: In longitudinal analyses, seeing EC use in public at least some days was the only social norm that predicted initiation of EC use between waves (OR = 1.66, 95%CI = 1.08-2.56). In the cross-sectional analysis, having an intention to quit was associated with seeing EC use in public (OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.04-1.81) and reporting fewer than three close friends smoke (OR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.44-0.80). There was no association between any social norm and making a quit attempt between waves. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of EC use is predicted by seeing EC use in public, which was also associated with greater intention to quit smoking. Friends' smoking was associated with lower intention to quit. These findings may allay concerns that increased visibility of ECs is renormalizing smoking amongst current smokers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".