A Scoping Review of Trends in the Size of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Tobacco Use Disparities, 1996–2020, United States and Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:Tobacco use is a major health disparity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations compared with heterosexual/cisgender populations. In this scoping review, we aimed to determine if LGBT tobacco use disparities are improving or worsening over time and if trends in disparities differed across subgroups. Methods:We included articles that longitudinally explored youth and adult LGB tobacco use in the United States and Canada after searching four databases and capturing records through July 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the title/abstract and full text of 2326 and 45 articles, respectively. Eleven articles from 18 larger assessments met inclusion criteria, spanning data collection from 1996 to 2020. Results:All studies consistently demonstrated tobacco disparities for LGB populations. No articles examined longitudinal transgender tobacco disparities. Most studies focused on smoking combustible cigarettes. Disparities in heavy or daily use for all LGB youth subgroups compared with heterosexual samples appear to be shrinking longitudinally. Results for early-onset, current, and lifetime smoking were less consistent. Adult evidence was relatively sparse; however, after 2010, studies show diminishing disparities over time, except for current smoking by bisexual women. Conclusions:Large tobacco use disparities persist for LGB populations, although the size of disparities may be decreasing for some groups. Initiatives for lesbian and bisexual women and girls should be prioritized, in addition to interventions addressing LGB smoking broadly. Surveillance instruments should uniformly and consistently assess LGBT identities and tobacco use behaviors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it