MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399207771 · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntad112

Use of Menthol Cigarettes and Accessories Among Youth Who Smoked After the Menthol Cigarette Ban in England and Canada, 2021: Implications for Health Equity

2024· article· en· W4399207771 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christina N Kyriakos, Filippos T Filippidis, Katherine East, Jessica L. Reid, Pete Driezen, David Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueNicotine & Tobacco Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaImperial College LondonSociety for the Study of AddictionPublic Health AgencyNational Cancer InstitutePublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMentholMedicineSmokeOddsDemographyEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionYouth smokingOdds ratioCigarette smokingEthnic groupTobacco controlPublic healthGeographyChemistryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study examined menthol cigarette use among youth who smoked, after menthol cigarette bans were implemented in England (May 2020) and Canada (October 2017). AIMS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional data come from 2021 ITC Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey respondents aged 16-19 who smoked in the past 30 d in England (N = 715) and Canada (N = 419). Adjusted logistic regression models, estimated separately for each country, examined sociodemographic correlates of usually smoking menthol cigarettes (reporting currently most often smoking menthol cigarettes) overall, and by past 30-d use of any menthol accessories (e.g., filters, capsules). Youth reported the cigarette variety they smoked most often, coded as menthol or nonmenthol. RESULTS: Almost no youth who smoked in the past 30 d reported most often smoking a cigarette variety coded as menthol. However, 34.5% (95% CI: 30.4% to 38.9%) of youth who smoke in England and 30.9% (26.0%-36.3%) in Canada reported usually smoking menthol cigarettes, with greater odds of use among those identifying as black, or other race/ethnicity, respectively, compared to white in England (60.0%, aOR = 3.08, p = .001; 47.4%, aOR = 2.27, p = .011) and Canada (43.6%, aOR = 2.44, p = .046; 51.2%, aOR = 2.92, p = .001). Among those who reported usually smoking menthol cigarettes in England (N = 223) and Canada (N = 108), 71.7% (64.0%-78.2%) and 51.5% (41.1%-61.7%) reported using menthol accessories. CONCLUSIONS: After menthol cigarette bans in England and Canada, approximately one-third of youth who smoked reported usually smoking menthol cigarettes, with disproportionately higher use among those identifying as black and other race/ethnicity. Menthol accessories accounted for most menthol cigarette use. Closing regulatory loopholes is critical to advancing public health equity. IMPLICATIONS: Use of menthol cigarette accessories (eg, filters, cards, capsules) among youth who smoked was prevalent after implementation of menthol cigarette bans in England and Canada, and there was disproportionately higher use among those who identified as black and any other race/ethnicity. Efforts are therefore required to close regulatory loopholes of menthol cigarette bans. Findings further support countries, such as the United States, proposing menthol cigarette bans which extend coverage to accessories. More comprehensive menthol bans that also restrict accessories are likely to be more effective in reducing flavored tobacco use among young people and in advancing health equity.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNicotine & Tobacco ResearchSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207