Disparities in the prevalence of cigarette smoking among bisexual people: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the bisexual-specific prevalence and likelihood of cigarette smoking relative to lesbian/gay and heterosexual individuals. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus and LGBT Life databases (from 1995 to September 2019) for studies reporting cigarette smoking among bisexuals versus their comparators. STUDY SELECTION: Observational, quantitative, peer-reviewed studies providing estimates for lifetime, past 30 days or current cigarette smoking among bisexuals and any of the two comparators were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on sexual orientation groups, cigarette smoking, sample type and mechanism, data collection mode, country and median year, as well as gender and age groups were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled OR (95% CIs) of cigarette smoking. Meta-regression was used to examine the difference in the prevalence of cigarette smoking by study and sample characteristics. Of 4663 unduplicated records, 47 unique studies were included (14, 23 and 22 studies on lifetime, past 30 days and current cigarette smoking, respectively). Compared with lesbians/gays and heterosexuals, bisexuals were 1.25 (1.15 to 1.37) and 2.18 (1.84 to 2.59) times more likely to report lifetime smoking, 1.17 (1.08 to 1.27) and 2.49 (2.20 to 2.83) times more likely to report past 30 days smoking and 1.19 (1.00 to 1.43) and 2.26 (1.97 to 2.59) times more likely to report current smoking. Gender was a significant covariate in the meta-regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette smoking was more prevalent among bisexuals than lesbians/gays and heterosexuals, with the estimates showing a greater magnitude among bisexual women relative to all other sexual orientation/gender subgroups.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".