ArticleMalaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia2015
Effectiveness of pictorial health warning on cigarette packages: A cross-sectional study in Sarawak, Malaysia.
Article in Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Awareness and Perceptions on Health Warning Labels on Cigarette Packs among Smokers: A Cross-Sectional Study.BioMed research international · 2020Trial
- Article
- A Qualitative Study of Pictorial Health Warnings on Malaysian Cigarette Packs: How Do the Adults Understand Them?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The effectivity of pictorial health warning to motivate smoking cessation in rural area: A study from Losari village, Indonesia.Journal of education and health promotion · 2020Article
- Factors Affecting the Perceived Effectiveness of Pictorial Health Warnings on Cigarette Packages in Gulf Countries: A Cross-sectional Study.Tobacco use insights · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpecific health warning placed on the tobacco product packages is considered as an effective and low-cost method for increasing the knowledge and awareness among the community. Thus, a study was conducted to assess the perception of pictorial health warnings (PHWs) against smoking among the adult rural population of Sarawak.
methodsCross-sectional data were collected from 10 villages in Kota Samarahan and Kuching Division by face to face interview using modified Global Adult Tobacco Survey questionnaire. Nonprobability sampling method was adopted to select the villages. All the households of the selected villages were visited and an adult member was selected randomly from each house irrespective of the sex. After missing value imputation, 1000 data were analysed using statistical software IBM SPSS 20.0 version.
resultsAnalysis showed that 28.8% of the respondents were current smokers, 7.8% were past smokers and the rest were non-smokers. Six items of pictorial health warnings were evaluated with five point Likert's scales for attractiveness, fearfulness and adequacy of the information. Analysis revealed that the majority of the respondents had perceived awareness on PHWs, but the smokers believed that this was not adequate to make them quit smoking. Only one-fifth (19.7%) of them reported that current pictorial health warnings were sufficient to motivate people to quit smoking.
conclusionThough the PHWs on cigarette packages are appealing, it is not sufficient as a reason to stop smoking. Thus, an approach using an integrated anti-tobacco public health programme should be focused into the specific targeted community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27570604PMC4992350W2994089673What 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.