ArticleScientific reports2025
A cross-national analysis of demographic variation in daily smoking across 22 countries.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A comparative "report card" wellbeing assessment of 22 countries in the Global Flourishing Study.Discover global society · 2026Article
- A cross-national analysis of childhood predictors of daily smoking in adulthood.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- The role of health literacy within the social determinants of health framework: a cross-sectional study on smoking behavior in Fujian, China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Easy to Lose and Risky to Regain? A Scoping Review of Experimentally Manipulated Masculinity Threat and Men's Health.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cigarette use, a leading cause of preventable disease and millions of deaths worldwide each year, is not often studied separately from other tobacco use, and global data and previous studies on cigarette smoking are based mostly on its prevalence rather than quantity. To address these oversights, we analyze the first wave of data from Global Flourishing Study, a study of over 200,000 adults nationally representative of 22 countries. We measured cigarette smoking by daily consumption per capita (mean) and per individual who smoked (intensity) as well as prevalence. The mean of daily smoking was positively correlated with the prevalence, whereas the intensity was not significantly related to the prevalence. Similarly, we found that random effects meta-analysis results of country-specific means of daily smoking in each category of demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, employment, religious service attendance, education, and immigration status) were more consistent with the results of prevalence than was the case with intensity, though there was variation across countries. Overall findings indicate the importance of studying the intensity as well as prevalence of smoking, as they are distinct and thus both required in order to assess tobacco-associated health risks and establish informed tobacco control policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.