MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7065611431

An evaluation of tobacco control strategies on smoking-related outcomes in Canada during the time of the federal tobacco control strategy

2016· dissertation· en· W7065611431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco controlExciseSocioeconomic statusConsumption (sociology)Control (management)Agency (philosophy)Smoking cessationPublic health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicSmoking Behavior and Cessation→French-language works237,207→