MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386572955 · doi:10.1101/2023.09.08.23295247

Smoking prevalence and purchasing of menthol cigarettes since the menthol flavour ban in Great Britain: a population-based survey between 2020 and 2023

2023· preprint· en· W4386572955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vera Helen Buss, Harry Tattan‐Birch, Sharon Cox, Linda Bauld, Lion Shahab, Jamie Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Environment Research CouncilEconomic and Social Research CouncilChief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care DirectorateMedical Research CouncilPublic Health AgencyHealth and Social Care Research and Development DivisionNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchScottish GovernmentUniversity College LondonBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UK
KeywordsMentholQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyMedicinePopulationEnvironmental healthSmoking prevalenceGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Menthol cigarettes have been banned in Great Britain (GB) since May 2020. Still, menthol accessories and unlabelled cigarettes perceived as mentholated are available, and people can buy menthol cigarettes overseas or illicitly. This study assessed: trends in smoking menthol cigarettes among all adults and 18-to-24-year-olds in GB between October 2020 and March 2023; trends in and differences between England, Scotland, and Wales during the same period; and purchase sources among people smoking menthol versus non-flavoured cigarettes. Methods Population-weighted data were from a monthly cross-sectional survey of adults in GB. Among people smoking cigarettes, we calculated the proportion smoking menthol cigarettes across all adults and 18-to-24-year-olds, and prevalence ratios (PR) between first and last quarter. We also calculated proportions of people smoking menthol/non-flavoured cigarettes by purchase source (including illicit sources). Results In the first quarter, 16.2% of adults smoking cigarettes reported menthol cigarette smoking with little to no decline throughout the study (PR=0.85, 0.71-1.01), while it declined slightly among 18-to-24-year-olds (PR=0.75, 0.63-0.89). The prevalence of menthol cigarette smoking fell by two-thirds in Wales (PR=0.36, 0.19-0.62) but remained relatively stable in England (PR=0.88, 0.72-1.06) and Scotland (PR=0.94, 0.59-1.53). The main purchasing sources were licit (93.9%), 14.8% reported illicit sources and 11.5% cross-border purchases, without notable differences from people smoking non-flavoured cigarettes. Conclusions Roughly one million adults in GB still smoke menthol cigarettes and, with the exception of Wales, there were no noteworthy changes in the post-ban period. There was no indication that this was driven by illicit purchases. What is already known on this topic Tobacco companies have used various loopholes in the legislation to circumvent the menthol cigarette ban in Great Britain and, in general, some people tend to migrate towards illicit purchases when their product is banned. What this study adds Despite the ban, menthol cigarettes have remained popular among adults who smoke in Great Britain, with roughly one in seven reporting smoking menthol cigarettes. Between October 2020 and March 2023, there was no noteworthy change in menthol cigarette smoking prevalence in the overall British adult population, but there was a sharp decline among the Welsh population. How this study might affect research, practice or policy Since the majority of people who reported menthol cigarette smoking purchased cigarettes through licit sources, it might indicate that most of them either use accessories to add menthol flavour to their cigarettes or they purchase cigarette brands that are perceived to contain menthol flavouring without being labelled as such. If the aim is to reduce menthol cigarette smoking prevalence to nearly zero, policymakers in Great Britain should consider closing loopholes in the current legislation, such as prohibiting all menthol and its analogues and derivatives in all tobacco-related products, including accessories.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 venuemedRxiv→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→