ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Determinants of environmental tobacco smoke exposure in Chile: a national study using complex survey data and robust count models.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) remains a significant public health concern in Chile despite the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free policies. This study aimed to identify sociodemographic, behavioral, and biochemical factors associated with daily ETS exposure across different environments among Chilean adults. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the 2016-2017 Chilean National Health Survey (ENS), a nationally representative survey with a complex multistage sampling design. The analytical sample included 6,233 individuals aged 15 years or older, of whom 5,520 had biochemical measurements; missing data were addressed using multiple imputation. Six outcome variables representing daily hours (0-24) of ETS exposure were analyzed across home, workplace, and other environments on weekdays and weekends. Given the high proportion of zero values (~88.5%) and evidence of overdispersion (dispersion = 6.2), Poisson, negative binomial, and zero-inflated Poisson models were formally compared using likelihood-based criteria, while quasi-Poisson models were used exclusively to assess overdispersion and the robustness of standard errors. Survey-weighted generalized linear models were fitted, and exponentiated coefficients were interpreted as mean ratios (MR). Negative Binomial models provided the best fit (AIC = 6,300 vs. 11,470 for Poisson), with consistent findings across sensitivity analyses. ETS exposure was higher among men, urban residents, and individuals reporting insomnia. Age was inversely associated with exposure (MR ≈ 0.99 per year), indicating lower expected exposure hours among older individuals. Women showed lower exposure compared to men (MR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55-0.87), and rural residence was associated with reduced exposure (MR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.84). Insomnia was associated with higher exposure (MR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.10-2.73). Descriptive analyses indicated that exposure was highest in "other environments," particularly during weekends. These findings suggest that ETS exposure in Chile is unevenly distributed and shaped by sociodemographic and behavioral factors. Accounting for complex survey design and distributional characteristics of exposure data improves the validity and interpretability of results. Targeted public health strategies focusing on high-risk groups and environments are needed, while integrating behavioral and contextual determinants into 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.