ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2017
Graphic health warnings and their best position on waterpipes: A cross-sectional survey of expert and public opinion.
Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of graphic warning label on acute changes in waterpipe tobacco smoking behavior, biomarkers of exposure and harm, and subjective effects in a randomized trial.Addictive behaviors · 2026Trial
- Visual Attention to Health Warning Labels on Waterpipe Venue Menus in Immersive Virtual Reality.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022Trial
- Public View of Public Health Emergencies Based on Artificial Intelligence Data.Journal of environmental and public health · 2022Article
- Waterpipe Warning Placement and Risk Perceptions: An Eye Tracking Study.American journal of health behavior · 2021Article
- Association of health warning labels and motivation to quit waterpipe tobacco smoking among university students in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2021Article
- Waterpipe tobacco package warning exposure's impact on risk perceptions and use among young adults in the USA: a longitudinal analysis of the population assessment of tobacco and health study.Tobacco control · 2019Article
- Would placing pictorial health warnings on waterpipe devices reduce waterpipe tobacco smoking? A qualitative exploration of Egyptian waterpipe smokers' and non-smokers' responses.Tobacco control · 2019Article
- Article
- Do pictorial health warnings on waterpipe tobacco packs matter? Recall effectiveness among Egyptian waterpipe smokers & non-smokers.PloS one · 2018Article
- Harm perceptions of waterpipe tobacco smoking among university students in five Eastern Mediterranean Region countries: A cross-sectional study.Tobacco induced diseases · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOur aim was to assess the visibility and efficiency of graphic health warnings (GHWs) on waterpipe tobacco packs (WTPs) and to explore other more effective places to display them for better impact. We also evaluated the visibility of GHWs when placed on the waterpipe device.
methodsWe conducted 3 cross-sectional study phases using face-to-face survey questionnaires in 2014-2015. Phase I surveyed 31 tobacco control experts, while Phase II surveyed 700 participants and Phase III surveyed 348 from the public in Cairo, Egypt.
resultsApproximately half of the experts and participants in Phases II and III thought that GHWs on WTPs are not adequately visible, and 68.9% and 79.6% in Phases II and III, respectively, suggested posting warnings also in other places. About one-third of experts and 69.1% of Phase II participants suggested posting GHWs inside cafés or in public places, while 46.9% of Phase III participants favored placing them on waterpipes. After viewing our suggested positions on a waterpipe, all experts, 80.6% of participants in Phase II, and 81.6% in Phase III acknowledged that GHWs would be more visible there. The mouthpiece was the location selected most often across all phases (31.1% in Phase I, 35.6% in Phase II and 36.3% in Phase III). Lung and throat cancers were similarly effective in raising participants' concern about waterpipe smoking health risks (24.7%).
conclusionsThis is the first population-based study to explore the best location to place GHWs on waterpipes. Policymakers should consider enacting a regulatory framework for placing GHWs on waterpipe devices.
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.