MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406712568 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092380

Effective interventions to prevent youth vaping behaviours: a rapid review

2025· review· en· W4406712568 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada Research ChairsAlberta Health Services
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineIntrusivenessPsycINFOPublic healthSystematic reviewObservational studyContext (archaeology)Socioeconomic statusMEDLINEEnvironmental healthPsychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyPopulationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify effective policies and non-policy interventions preventing youth vaping behaviour initiation and assess their effectiveness by the level of intrusiveness and subpopulations. DESIGN: This systematic rapid review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Searches on MEDLINE and APA-PsycINFO for studies published between January 2019 and November 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational, intervention or mixed-method studies and quantitative systematic reviews/meta-analyses measuring the impact of interventions on youth (6-18 years) who never vaped or who had experimentally vaped. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: . We applied PROGRESS-Plus (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation,Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, and additional context-specific factors) for an equity analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. RESULTS: 20 studies were included: 45% were experiments or quasiexperiments, 85% reported data from the USA, 65% were non-policy interventions and 40% and 35% measured susceptibility and attitudes and behaviours related to vaping, respectively. Considering the level of intrusiveness, 45% of the studies provided information and 25% eliminated choices. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low. The effectiveness of interventions regarding their level of intrusiveness varied by each outcome. No clear pattern was found between the level of intrusiveness and intervention effectiveness, suggesting that overall, the studied interventions positively changed youth vaping behaviours. Some interventions had positive effects on multiple outcomes. Equity-related findings suggested that younger youth may be less responsive to the interventions. Recommendations for action are provided. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that combining multiple interventions targeting different levels of intrusiveness and outcomes may be more effective in preventing youth vaping behaviours. Also important is to tailor programmes to younger youth to better meet their needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDoping in SportsFrench-language works237,207