Was there any change in tobacco smoking among adults in Bangladesh during 2009–2017? Insights from two nationally representative cross-sectional surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the changes in prevalence and associated factors of tobacco smoking among Bangladeshi adults over time. DESIGN: Nationally representative cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Two most recent Global Adults Tobacco Survey (GATS) data from Bangladesh, carried out in 2009 and 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Adult population aged 15 and above (n=9629 in 2009; n=12 783 in 2017). OUTCOME MEASURES: Current use of tobacco smoke, including cigarettes, bidi, hukkah, cigars or pipes, which was dichotomised ('yes'/'no'). METHODS: We analysed data from two recent rounds of GATS (2009 and 2017). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of tobacco smoking among Bangladeshi adults was noted (23.00%, 95% CI 22.98 to 23.00 in 2009; 16.44%, 95% CI 16.43 to 16.45 in 2017). Being male (adjusted OR (AOR)=59.72, CI 40.56 to 87.93 for 2009; AOR=71.17, CI 41.08 to 123.32 for 2017), age between 25 and 64 years (all AORs >2 and p<0.05), smoking permissible at home (AOR=7.08, CI 5.88 to 8.52 for 2009; AOR=5.90, CI 5.34 to 6.95 for 2017), and watching tobacco smoking product use in movie/drama scenes (AOR=1.26, CI 1.11 to 1.44 for 2009; AOR=1.34, CI 1.17 to 1.54 for 2017) were found to be significantly associated with increased tobacco smoking among adults both in 2009 and in 2017. However, being offered free tobacco sample products (AOR=0.66, CI 0.57 to 0.77 for 2009; AOR=0.87, CI 0.76 to 0.99 for 2017) and having primary, secondary or higher education (all AORs <1 and p<0.05) as well as being a student (AOR=0.16, CI 0.09 to 0.29 for 2009; AOR=0.32, CI 0.19 to 0.53) were associated with lower odds of tobacco smoking in both surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Although the prevalence of tobacco smoking has declined over the period, it is still high among those who were relatively older, men, less educated and exposed to a movie/drama where tobacco smoking is promoted. Therefore, appropriate interventions are required to stop tobacco smoking among the Bangladeshi population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".