ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences
Familiarity, perception, and reasons for electronic-cigarette experimentation among the general public in Malaysia: Preliminary insight.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of non-menthol flavours in e-cigarettes on perceptions and use: an updated systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of consumer preference for e-cigarette attributes: Flavor, nicotine strength, and type.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Differences in AUTOS- and FTND-assessed dependence on various tobacco products among Chinese current tobacco/nicotine users.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An online survey of Malaysian long-term e-cigarette user perceptions.Tobacco induced diseases · 2020Article
- Prevalence and associated factors of ever use of electronic cigarettes: Findings from a hospitals and health clinics study based in Malaysia.Tobacco induced diseases · 2018Article
- Electronic cigarette experimentation in the Malaysian city of Kuantan: Was there an association with the smoking status?Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to assess the general public views and familiarity toward electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) in Kuantan, Malaysia. METHODOLOGY: A total of 277 Kuantan people were involved in this study. The questionnaire was distributed at random in shops, businesses, and public places in Kuantan. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 17.0).
resultsFrom 400 participants, a total number of 277 (160, 57.7% men and 117, 42.4% women) respondents completed the questionnaire. The mean age was 26.89 ± 9.8 years old. The majority of the study participants were male (57.7%), Malay (83.8%), Muslims (83.8%), singles (69%), and employed (75.8%), with about 83 (29.9%) of the respondents were smokers. The prevalence of e-cigarettes smokers was found to be only 1.4% (n = 4). About one-third of the respondents (n = 72, 26%) have tried e-cigarette before. Job status was significantly associated with smoking e-cigarette among the population (P = 0.02). Main factors for a person to start e-cigarette smoking were curiosity (37.5%) and cheaper price (40.8%). Majority of respondents agreed that e-cigarette would not affect health as normal cigarette, and that variety of flavors contribute to better enjoyment (51.6% and 66.7%, respectively).
conclusionThe results of the current study demonstrate that the prevalence of e-cigarettes smoking and its popularity, familiarity, and knowledge are still insufficient among Kuantan population. Further studies should be done to tackle this problem before it getting worse.
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.