An evaluation of tobacco control strategies on smoking-related outcomes in Canada during the time of the federal tobacco control strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Various tobacco control laws and strategies have been implemented in Canada since the 1980s. Excise tobacco taxes are a common form of tobacco control, and tax levels in Canada have been gradually increasing since the 1980s. More recently, the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) was launched in 2001 as a planned 10-year initiative by Health Canada (HC), in partnership with Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and other agencies. We can summarize the FTCS goals as the following: (i) prevention of smoking among youths, (ii) cessation and reduction of consumption among smokers, and (iii) protection of non-smokers from environmental tobacco smoke. Although both smoking prevalence and smoking frequency have declined during the time of the FTCS, the contributions of the various tobacco control strategies in effect in achieving FTCS goals are unclear. Moreover, there exists a socioeconomic gap in smoking among the adult population, and it is also unclear what impact tobacco control strategies operating during the time of the FTCS have had on this gap. Objectives: The three studies of my PhD dissertation are motivated by the set of Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) goals and the socioeconomic inequality in smoking. The first one evaluated the effectiveness of cigarette taxes as a tool for the prevention of smoking and the development of a habit among youths. The second study assessed the effectiveness of cigarette taxes in facilitating smoking cessation, and reducing smoking frequency among adults. The third study evaluated the protective effect of smoke-free legislation, but assessed smoking prevalence and frequency on the adult Canadian population. The second and third studies also included an evaluation of the potential differential effects by education. Results: For our analyses, we used the Canadian Tobacco Usage Monitoring Survey 2002-2012 database and exploited the variation in excise cigarette tax levels and implementation of smoke-free legislation among the provinces. We used regression models with province and year fixed effects, individual-level covariates, and provincial-level covariates. For Research Objective 1, changes in excise cigarette taxes yielded negligible contributions to the reduction in smoking behaviour among youths. For an increase of $1.00 in excise cigarette taxes per package of 20, the marginal effect was 0.2 (95% CI: -1.8, 2.2) percentage points for smoking prevalence, and 0.3 (95% CI: -1.2, 1.8) cigarettes for smoking frequency (past-week). We obtained similar results for the average effect of taxes on smoking behaviour among adults for Research Objective 2. For an increase of $1.00 in excise cigarette taxes per package of 20, the marginal effect was -0.1 (95% CI: -1.7, 1.5) percentage points for smoking prevalence, and -0.1 (95% CI: -1.9, 1.7) cigarettes (per week) for smoking frequency. We continued to derive null results when assessing the impact of excise cigarette taxes by education for both smoking outcomes.Likewise, for Research Objective 3, provincial smoke-free legislation (PSFL) had little impact on smoking behaviour among adults. The marginal average effect for smoking prevalence was 0.1 (95% CI: -1.3, 1.4) percentage points. The marginal average effect for smoking frequency was -0.6 (95% CI: -2.2, 1.0) cigarettes. Again, we derived null results when assessing the impact of PSFL by education for both smoking outcomes. Conclusions: From 2002-2012, both smoking prevalence and mean smoking frequency have been in steady decline in Canada. These declines, however, are present even in provinces with stable or decreasing cigarette tax levels and for provinces which implement smoke-free legislation at a later time, suggesting that other factors common to all provinces such as growing anti-smoking sentiment have had a greater influence over tobacco use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".