Prevalence, perceptions and factors associated with menthol cigarette smoking: findings from the ITC Kenya and Zambia Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Menthol masks the harshness of cigarette smoke, promotes youth smoking and encourages health-concerned smokers who incorrectly believe that menthols are less harmful to smoke menthols. This study of smokers in Kenya and Zambia is the first study in Africa to examine menthol use, smokers' beliefs about its harmfulness and the factors associated with menthols. METHODS: Data were from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Kenya Wave 2 (2018) and Zambia Wave 2 Survey (2014), involving nationally representative samples of smokers. This study focuses on 1246 adult smokers (644 in Kenya, 602 in Zambia) who reported smoking a usual brand of cigarettes (menthol or non-menthol). RESULTS: Overall, menthol use was significantly higher among smokers in Zambia than in Kenya (48.0% vs 19.0%), females (45.6% vs 31.2% males), non-daily smokers (43.8% vs 30.0% daily) and those who exclusively smoked factory-made (FM) cigarettes (43.0% vs 15.2%). The erroneous belief that menthols are less harmful was more likely among smokers in Zambia than in Kenya (53.4% vs 29.3%) and among female smokers (38.5% vs 28.2%). In Kenya, menthol smoking was associated with being female (adjusted odds ratios (AOR)=3.07; p=0.03), worrying about future health (AOR=2.28; p=0.02) and disagreeing with the statement that smoking was calming (AOR=2.05; p=0.04). In Zambia, menthol use was associated with being female (AOR=3.91; p=0.002), completing primary school (AOR=2.14; p=0.03), being a non-daily smoker (AOR=2.29; p=0.03), exclusively using FM cigarettes (AOR=14.7; p<0.001), having a past quit attempt (AOR=1.54; p=0.02), believing that menthols are less harmful (AOR=3.80; p<0.001) and choosing menthols because they believed it was less harmful (AOR=3.52; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Menthols are highly prevalent among females in both countries. There is a need in African countries to combat the myth that menthols are less harmful and to ban menthol and other flavourings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".