MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4383482947 · doi:10.2196/47058

Effects of Tobacco Versus Electronic Cigarette Usage on Nonsuicidal Self-Injury and Suicidality Among Chinese Youth: Cross-Sectional Self-Report Survey Study

2023· article· en· W4383482947 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yinzhe Wang, Shicun Xu, Xiaoqian Zhang, Yanwen Zhang, Yi Feng, Yuan Yuan Wang, Runsen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTsinghua UniversityPeople's Government of Jilin Province
KeywordsElectronic cigaretteCross-sectional studyMedicinePoison controlClinical psychologyPublic healthPsychologyDemographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The increase in tobacco/conventional cigarette (CC) and electronic cigarette (EC) usage among Chinese youth has become a growing public health concern. This is the first large-scale study to compare the impact of CC and EC usage on risk for nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) and suicidality in cis-heterosexual and sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth populations in China. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the CC and EC risks for NSSI and suicidality among Chinese youth and compares the extent to which SGM and cis-heterosexual youth's risks for NSSI and suicidality are influenced by their CC and EC usage and dependence. METHODS: A total of 89,342 Chinese participants completed a cross-sectional self-report survey in 2021. Sociodemographic information, sexual orientations, gender identities, CC and EC usage, CC and EC dependence, and risks for suicidality and NSSI were assessed. The Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test were performed for nonnormally distributed continuous variables and categorical variables, respectively. The multivariable linear regression model was used to examine both the influence of CC and EC usage and CC and EC dependence on NSSI and suicidality as well as the interaction effects of CC and EC usage and CC and EC dependence on NSSI and suicidality by group. RESULTS: The prevalence of CC usage (P<.001) and dependence (P<.001) among SGM participants was lower than that among their cis-heterosexual counterparts. However, the prevalence of EC usage (P=.03) and EC dependence (P<.001) among SGM participants was higher than that among their cis-heterosexual counterparts. The multivariable linear regression model showed that CC dependence and EC dependence had a unique effect on NSSI and suicidality (CCs: B=0.02, P<.001; B=0.09, P<.001; ECs: B=0.05, P<.001; B=0.14, P<.001, respectively). The interaction effects of (1) CC usage and group type on NSSI and suicidality (B=0.34, P<.001; B=0.24, P=.03, respectively) and dual usage and group type on NSSI and suicidality (B=0.54, P<.001; B=0.84, P<.001, respectively) were significant, (2) CC dependence and group type on NSSI were significant (B=0.07, P<.001), and (3) EC dependence and group type on NSSI and suicidality were significant (B=0.04, P<.001; B=0.09, P<.001, respectively). No significant interaction effect was observed between EC usage and group type on NSSI and suicidality (B=0.15, P=.12; B=0.33, P=.32, respectively) and between CC dependence and group type on suicidality (B=-0.01, P=.72). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows evidence of intergroup differences in NSSI and suicidality risks between SGM and cis-heterosexual youth related to CC and EC usage. These findings contribute to the growing literature on CC and EC in cis-heterosexual and SGM populations. Concerted efforts are necessary at a societal level to curb the aggressive marketing strategies of the EC industry and media coverage and to maximize the impact of educational campaigns on EC prevention and intervention among the youth 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→