Support for regulating smoking in private and public places by adults who currently smoke and recently quit smoking in Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While indoor smoking restrictions are common, outdoor restrictions are still rare. We explored opinions and support for regulating smoking in different indoor and outdoor environments among adults who smoke and those who recently quit smoking, in Spain. METHODS: The 2021 ITC EUREST-PLUS Spain Survey is a cross-sectional study conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1006 adults aged ≥18 years who smoked cigarettes (n=867) or had recently quit smoking (n=139). Using Poisson regression with robust variance, we estimated adjusted prevalence and prevalence ratios of favorable opinions on regulating smoking in different indoor and outdoor environments and support for regulation in unregulated outdoor environments, by sociodemographic and smoking-related characteristics. RESULTS: There were highly favorable opinions for regulating smoking in places with minors (>95% in primary and secondary playgrounds, and cars with pre-school children and minors) and outdoor transportation (60-80%). There were less favorable opinions for regulating smoking in outdoor terraces of bars/pubs and restaurants (15-20%). Support for further total outdoor regulations on smoking was moderate for markets/shopping centers, public building entrances and swimming pools (40-60%), and low for restaurants/bars/pubs (29.2%). Having quit smoking, having no significant others who smoke and/or believing that cigarette smoke is harmful to others, were factors positively associated with favorable opinions and support for regulating smoking. CONCLUSIONS: The settings in Spain with the most favorable opinions for regulation among adults who smoke and have recently quit smoking are places with minors, private cars with others and outdoor areas of public transportation, while the settings with the least favorable opinions were outdoor terraces of bars, pubs, and restaurants. Support for further total outdoor smoking bans is generally moderate, but low for restaurants, bars, and pubs. Overall, these findings suggest the feasibility of extending smoke-free policies to other public and private settings to protect others from tobacco smoke exposure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".