Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30355793›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Plain packaging of waterpipe tobacco? A qualitative analysis exploring waterpipe smokers' and non-smokers' responses to enhanced versus existing pictorial health warnings in Egypt.

Aya Mostafa, Heba Tallah Mohammed, Wafaa Mohamed Hussein, Mahmoud Elhabiby, Wael Safwat, Sahar Labib, Aisha Aboul Fotouh, Janet Hoek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Plain Packaging: One of the Plain Simple Solutions for Nicotine Reduction in the Middle East.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  4. "Scary and Effective, Definitely Pushes Me to Quit Smoking": Developing Waterpipe Pictorial Health Warnings Targeting Young Adults in Lebanon.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Waterpipe smoking: the pressing need for risk communication.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2019
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Aya MostafaDepartment of Community, Environmental, and Occupational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-2803-2608
Heba Tallah MohammedDepartment of Community, Environmental, and Occupational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Wafaa Mohamed HusseinDepartment of Community, Environmental, and Occupational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mahmoud ElhabibyDepartment of Psychiatry Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Wael SafwatEgyptian Tobacco Control Coalition, Cairo, Egypt.
Sahar LabibTobacco Control Unit, Ministry of Health, Cairo, Egypt.
Aisha Aboul FotouhDepartment of Community, Environmental, and Occupational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Janet HoekDepartments of Public Health and Marketing, University of Otago, Otago, New Zealand.
Ain Shams University · EGUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDespite the global increase in waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) including in Egypt, few studies have assessed the effectiveness of waterpipe tobacco (WT) health warnings. Egypt has used pictorial health warnings (PHWs) on waterpipe tobacco packs (WTPs) and has rotated these every two years since 2008. We explored in this qualitative study how participants perceived existing PHWs on WTPs, assessed how they interpreted novel plain packaging of WT featuring enhanced PHWs, and probed perceptions of how existing and novel sets would affect uptake or cessation of WTS.

designWe conducted ten qualitative focus groups and ten in-depth interviews. We explored participants' views of the four existing PHWs (occupied 50% of the front and back of WTPs, displayed cancers, and featured colourful fruits and flavors) and four novel PHWs (occupied 80% of the front and back of WTPs, displayed different topical content, with plain packaging). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

settingRural Menoufia, urban and semi-urban Cairo, Egypt.

participants90 waterpipe smokers and non-smokers, men and women, aged 18 years or older. OUTCOMES: Perceived potential effect on WTS uptake or cessation, probing factors related to PHW content and WTP design.

resultsParticipants in focus groups and in-depth interviews thought existing WT PHWs elicited affective responses, but found them unclear or unrealistic and thought the colourful packaging detracted from the warnings. In contrast, they thought novel and larger WT PHWs presented in plain packaging might prevent WTS initiation or trigger quit attempts. Participants regarded warnings featuring proximal health risks as most likely to be acceptable.

conclusionsOur exploratory study suggests larger WT PHWs featuring proximal risks and presented on plain WTPs could potentially deter experimentation with WT products among non-users and promote cessation among existing users.

Indexed as

Product PackagingTobacco, WaterpipeAdultEgyptFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNon-SmokersProduct LabelingSmokersSmoking CessationWater Pipe Smokingcessationhealth warningsplain packagingqualitative researchuptakewaterpipe tobacco

Identifiers

PMID30355793
PMCPMC6224725
OpenAlexW2898296977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.