ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2016
Is There Any Impact Of The Gutkha Ban on Users and Vendors in Rangareddy District? A Cross Sectional Study
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultural carcinogens in oral squamous cell carcinoma risk across global populations.Oncoscience · 2026Review
- Spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns in prevalence of chewing tobacco use in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.The Lancet. Public health · 2021Article
- Feedback from vendors onThe Indian journal of medical research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gutkha contains harmful and carcinogenic chemicals and oral cancer caused by tobacco usage has been reported as a major preventable cause of death worldwide by the World Health Organization. The Telangana state government implemented a ban on gutkha usage starting in 2013 but how effective this ban has been remains unclear. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the actual impact of the gutkha ban on users and vendors. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted among gutkha users and tobacco vendors in Ranga Reddy district, Telangana. Based on a pilot study the sample size was determined as 368 and 384 for users and vendors respectively. Two separate questionnaires were administered to these groups. The parameters studied mainly included knowledge regarding the ban, and its impact. Results: About 49.1% of the users were aware of the ban on gutkha. Newspapers were the main source of information regarding the ban as reported by 45.3% of users. After the ban, 29.8% of gutkha users switched to other tobacco products. Awareness of health hazards and non-availability of gutkha was the most important reason stated for quitting or reducing consumption. Conclusion: The perspective of ban when visualized from the users point of view depicted a negative impact while the vendors portrayed a positive impact. Considering the addictive potential of the ingredients of gutkha, recording the effects of the ban on regular consumers and determining whether they can still obtain the products by illicit trade, would be noteworthy for implementation of strict rules.
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.