Banning tobacco price promotions, smoking-related beliefs and behaviour: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country (ITC 4C) Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ecological models emphasise multilevel influences on health behaviours. While studies show that exposure to price promotions is associated with smoking behaviour and its antecedents, less is known about whether these associations differ by macro-level factors such as national price promotion policies. METHODS: Current and former smokers (N=4698) from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project four-country cohort were included in weighted multivariate logistic regression models to examine individual-level associations between exposure to price promotions at waves 7 and 8 (conducted in 2008-2009 and 2010-2011) and beliefs (social and injunctive norms, functional value of smoking, misconceptions around smoking and beliefs of tobacco industry and its regulations) and behaviour at wave 8, stratified by whether countries allow (Australia and USA) or ban (Canada and UK) price promotions. RESULTS: Associations between exposure to price promotions and smoking-related beliefs and behaviour differed by national price promotion policies. In countries that allow price promotions, participants repeatedly exposed to price promotions at waves 7 and 8 were more likely to associate functional values to smoking (ie, calms down when stressed (adjusted OR (AOR) 1.83) and to be current smokers at wave 8 (AOR 1.94). In countries that ban price promotions, participants repeatedly exposed to price promotions were less likely to hold misconceptions around smoking (ie, harsher smoke is more dangerous). CONCLUSIONS: Differential associations emerged between exposure to price promotions, smoking-related beliefs and behaviour across countries with and without a price promotions ban. Adopting price promotion bans could ameliorate the associations between exposure to price promotions and smoking beliefs and behaviours.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".