ArticleElectronic physician2016
Consumer Perception and Preference of Drinking Water Sources.
Article in Electronic physician, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining Drinking Water Preferences among University Students: A Comparative Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Predicting factors of public awareness and perception about the quality, safety of drinking water, and pollution incidents.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
- Customer's Perception and Preference towards Packaged Drinking Water.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2020Article
- Assessment of Freshwater Springs, Associated Diseases and Indigenous Perception in Ghizer, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan.Pakistan journal of medical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding consumer perception of drinking water can contribute to improvements in water management and consumer satisfaction. The aim of this study was to assess the consumer perception of tap water quality and other drinking water sources in Gonabad as a small semiarid city.
methodsThis study was performed in autumn and winter 2013. For collection data a researcher-made a questionnaire consisting of nine questions, based on demographic information prepared. Questions were asked for participants to provide information regarding household drinking water usage and patterns, opinion about tap water safety, taste and reasons for purchasing bottled water. For statistical analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS version 16 was applied in this study.
resultsResults showed that demographic variables had a significant relationship with consumer satisfaction (p < 0.05). Office employees, women and poor families had the most satisfaction from tap water quality. Peoples' preferences for tap water, commercial softener, domestic softener, ghanat (a type of underground cistern) and bottled water were 27.8, 19, 27.8, 40.4 and 3.5% respectively. Dissatisfaction from production of foam, unsuitable taste, unacceptable appearance and other problems in tap water was 11.1, 95.6, 27.8 and 0.4% respectively. Consumer reasons for using domestic water softeners are: suitable taste (80%), easy availability (71%), economical (56%) and low health side effects (34%).
conclusionAccording to these results it was clear that each consumer group, based on self-condition, prefers using a specific drinking water source.
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.