Examining socio‐economic disparities among e‐cigarette users and cigarette smokers in three Canadian jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is well established that a gradient exists among cigarette smokers, such that smoking is more prevalent among individuals who are of lower socio-economic status (SES). In this study, we examined whether a similar SES gradient exists among electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) using youth and adults in three Canadian jurisdictions. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from Ontario, Quebec and Yukon respondents (n = 58,592) to the 2017-2018 Canadian Community Health Survey was conducted. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models explored SES measures: total and relative household income, and education level, separately on use of e-cigarettes or cigarettes in the past 30 days. Models adjusted for additional socio-demographic and psychosocial covariates. RESULTS: A significant inverse SES gradient existed for cigarette smoking based on education and income variables, with higher education and income associated with decreasing consumption in a stepwise manner. No SES gradient was observed for e-cigarettes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: While a robust SES gradient was observed among cigarette smokers, no gradient for e-cigarette use was observed. Explanations for these findings may be linked to perceptions that e-cigarettes are healthier, have convenient designs and appealing flavours, and less stigmatised. As more becomes known about potential harms from e-cigarettes, effective interventions may be needed to prevent the emergence of a gradient that disproportionately affects those at lowest income and education levels. Continued monitoring of e-cigarette use patterns across SES groups is necessary for public health.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".