Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31029118›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2019

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions towards waterpipe tobacco smoking amongst college or university students: a systematic review.

Adam Arshad, Jaideep Matharoo, Ebrahim Arshad, Simardeep Singh Sadhra, Rosemary Norton-Wangford, Mohammed Jawad

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Waterpipe Smoking Among Japanese Teens and Young Adults: an Emerging Public Health Concern.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Adam ArshadMedical School, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. AXA18@student.bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3870-3663
Jaideep MatharooMedical School, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Ebrahim ArshadUniversity Hospitals of North Midlands, Stoke on Trent, UK.
Simardeep Singh SadhraMedical School, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Rosemary Norton-WangfordMedical School, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Mohammed JawadPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite evidence for the harms of waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS), its use is increasing amongst college and university students worldwide. This systematic review aims to assess the knowledge of, attitudes towards and perceptions of WTS among college or university students.

methodsWe electronically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCHINFO and ISI the Web of Science in October 2018, restricting our search to studies published since January 1990. We included studies among university or college students that used qualitative or quantitative methods, and addressed either knowledge, attitudes, or perceptions towards WTS. We excluded studies where WTS could not be distinguished from other forms of tobacco use and studies reported as abstracts where the full text could not be identified. Data were synthesised qualitatively and analysed data by region (global north/ south), and by reasons for use, knowledge of health hazards, how knowledge influences use, perceptions towards dependence, and policy knowledge.

resultsEighty-six studies were included; 45 from the global north and 41 from the global south. Socio-cultural and peer influences were major contributing factors that encouraged students to initiate WTS. Furthermore, WTS dependence had two components: psychological and social. This was compounded by the general perception that WTS is a less harmful, less addictive and more sociable alternative to cigarette smoking. Knowledge of WTS harms failed to correlate with a reduced risk of WTS use, and some students reported symptoms of WTS addiction. A large proportion of students believed that quitting WTS was easy, yet few were able to do so successfully. Finally, students believed current public health campaigns to educate on WTS harms were inadequate and, particularly in the global north, were not required.

conclusionReasons for WTS amongst university students are multi-faceted. Overall, interventions at both the individual and community level, but also policy measures to portray a message of increased harm amongst students, are required. Additional studies are necessitated to understand temporal changes in students' beliefs, thus allowing for better targeted interventions.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultBehavior, AddictiveFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleSmokingSmoking CessationStudentsTobacco, WaterpipeUniversitiesYoung AdultAttitudesKnowledgePerceptionsPublic healthTobaccoUniversity studentsWaterpipe

Identifiers

PMID31029118
PMCPMC6487066
OpenAlexW2943342637

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.