Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38375170›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024

Adult perceptions of cigarettes and e-cigarettes: A Pakistan focus group study.

Maria Qureshi, Mehwish Mumtaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

2 authors.

Maria QureshiQBAL, SMC (Single Member Company), Private, Limited, Pakistan.
Mehwish MumtazQBAL, SMC (Single Member Company), Private, Limited, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Evidence suggests that the popularity of Reduced Risk Products' (RRPs) is growing globally, and they are being considered as effective aids for tobacco cessation. To explore different policy options for reducing disease burden, this qualitative study investigates the perceptions of the urban adult population regarding the use of e-cigarettes (EC), combustible cigarettes, or both, and the factors influencing their choices. Methods: Twelve focus group discussions (FGDs), involving 132 participants, (68 male, 64 female), aged 18-60, were conducted from August to October 2022 in three metropolitan cities of Pakistan. Thematic analyses were conducted using the NVivo software. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were employed for reporting and conducting purposes. Results: The findings indicate that while all participants discussed the health risks associated with combustible cigarettes and EC and expressed intensions to quit, many continued to smoke or vape. Reasons cited included perceived stress relief, alleviation of medical issues, or addiction hindering cessation efforts. Among the youth, EC use gained popularity due to its social acceptability and the inclusion of appealing flavours and fragrances. Additionally, participants managed the higher costs of ECs by sharing and pooling expenses. Some users of combustible cigarettes transitioned to ECs with the expectation of achieving better health outcomes. Conclusion: This study establishes a foundation for undertaking quantitative research to identify pathways for assisting policymakers in mitigating the growing disease burden. Additionally, it aims to contribute to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals 3a and 3.4 for Pakistan.

Indexed as

Combustible cigarettesE-cigarettesHealth RisksNicotinePerceptionsReduced Risk Products (RRPs)SmokingTobaccoVaping

Identifiers

PMID38375170
PMCPMC10874858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.