Differential impact of the Canadian point-of-sale tobacco display bans on quit attempts and smoking cessation outcomes by sex, income and education: longitudinal findings from the ITC Canada Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: This study examines the differential effects of Canadian point-of-sale (POS) tobacco display bans across provinces on quit attempts and smoking cessation, by sex, education and income. METHODS: We analysed survey data from five waves (waves 4-8) of the International Tobacco Control Canada Survey, a population-based, longitudinal survey, where provinces implemented display bans between 2004 and 2010. Primary outcomes were quit attempts and successful cessation. We used generalised estimating equation Poisson regression models to estimate associations between living in a province with or without a POS ban (with a 24-month threshold) and smoking outcomes. We tested whether these associations varied by sex, education and income by including interaction terms. RESULTS: Across survey waves, the percentage of participants in provinces with POS bans established for more than 24 months increased from 5.0% to 95.8%. There was no association between POS bans and quit attempts for provinces with bans in place for 0-24 months or more than 24 months, respectively (adjusted relative risk (aRR)=0.99, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.10; 1.03, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.20). However, we found a differential impact of POS bans on quit attempts by sex, whereby bans were more effective for women than men for bans of 0-24 months. Participants living in a province with a POS ban for at least 24 months had a higher chance of successful cessation (aRR=1.49; 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.05) compared with those in a province without a ban. We found no differences in the association between POS bans and quit attempts or cessation by education or income, and no differences by sex for cessation. CONCLUSION: POS bans are associated with increased smoking cessation overall and more quit attempts among women than men.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".