ArticlePloS one2018
Do pictorial health warnings on waterpipe tobacco packs matter? Recall effectiveness among Egyptian waterpipe smokers & non-smokers.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and network meta-analysis of population-level interventions to tackle smoking behaviour.Nature human behaviour · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of pictorial health warning labels on smoking beliefs and perceptions among waterpipe smokers: an online randomised cross-over experimental study.Tobacco control · 2023Trial
- A Scoping Review of Tobacco Control Health Communication in Africa: Moving towards Involving Young People.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Factors associated with intentions to quit tobacco use in Lebanon: A cross-sectional survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Reasons for shisha smoking: Findings from a mixed methods study among adult shisha smokers in Nigeria.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Health and economic impacts of introducing specific excise tax to waterpipe tobacco in Egypt: a simulation model of simple and mixed tax policy approaches.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Examining the effect of waterpipe specific pictorial health warning labels among young adults in Lebanon and Tunisia: Protocol of a factorial experiment study design.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- E8-LWDS: Factorial Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Lebanese Waterpipe Dependence Scale-11 in 1490 Egyptian Waterpipe Tobacco Smokers-A Critical Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Perceived efficacy of existing waterpipe tobacco warning labels versus novel enhanced generic and waterpipe-specific sets.PloS one · 2021Article
- Options for waterpipe product regulation: A systematic review on product characteristics that affect attractiveness, addictiveness and toxicity of waterpipe use.Tobacco induced diseases · 2020Review
- Waterpipe smoking: the pressing need for risk communication.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2019Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite the global rise in waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS), the effectiveness of waterpipe tobacco health warnings remain understudied, especially in countries with high WTS rates. Egypt has been employing waterpipe tobacco labelling for a decade, however, their effectiveness is unknown. Our overall aim was to measure the effectiveness of pictorial health warnings (PHWs) on waterpipe tobacco packs (WTPs) through participant memory recall and to investigate whether they induced behavioural responses in waterpipe smokers and deterred uptake of WTS in non-smokers, examining the differentials of effectiveness among socio-demographic subgroups. SUBJECTS AND
methodsWe conducted two surveys including 1490 adult current waterpipe smokers, 73 former waterpipe smokers, and 451 non-smokers in Cairo and a rural village in Egypt between 2015-2017. Participants who noticed PHWs on WTPs were asked questions about salience, communication of health risks, public support, cognitive processing, and self-reported behavioural responses (current waterpipe smokers: reduce consumption, forgo a smoke, quit attempts; former waterpipe smokers: quit; non-smokers: deter WTS initiation). Univariate and multivariable statistical analyses were performed.
resultsParticipants' mean age was 35 years, mostly males (90.4%), waterpipe smokers (74.0%) and rural residents (59.3%). Approximately two-thirds of participants noticed PHWs on WTPs. Salience was significantly less among females, urban residents and participants with high literacy. More than three-quarters of participants reported that WTS health risks were communicated through the warnings. At least half of participants cognitively processed the warnings: 56.3% thought of the warnings when WTPs were out of sight; non-smokers understood the warnings (83.2%) and discussed them with others (90.3%) significantly more than current (76.0% and 72.5%, respectively) and former waterpipe smokers (81.0% and 61.9%, respectively). Participants reported that PHWs on WTPs motivated 58.5% of waterpipe smokers to think about quitting; 64.5% to reduce their consumption; 42.2% to forgo a smoke; 24.5% to attempt to quit; 57.1% of former waterpipe smokers to successfully quit; and 59.3% of non-smokers to remain smoke-free.
conclusionsFindings suggest that inserting PHWs on WTPs is an effective waterpipe tobacco labelling policy. Countries with similarly high rates of WTS should consider adopting WTP PHWs within a comprehensive regulatory framework.
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.