ArticleCureus2024
Male Youth Tobacco Usage Pattern in Banned Smoking Area in Comparison With Non-banned Smoking Area: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Smoking prevalence and emerging tobacco product use among Saudi adolescents: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the impact of smoking bans in schools on smoking prevalence and behavior among Saudi male youth aged 13-15 years.
methodsA cross-sectional comparative study was conducted involving students from two intermediate schools in Jeddah - one with a smoking ban and the other without. Data collection utilized the Global Youth Tobacco Survey questionnaire, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0.
resultsThe study had a 93.9% response rate, with 659 students participating. Notably, a lower percentage of ever-smoking was observed in the banned area compared to the non-banned area (39.6% vs. 50.9%; p=0.002). Current smoking rates were also lower in the banned area (14.2% vs. 23.8%; p=0.014). Family and peer influences on smoking were reduced in the banned area, and more students discussed the harmful effects of smoking with family (72.8% vs. 59.8%; p=0.003). Students in the non-banned area found it easier to access cigarettes. A significantly higher percentage of students in the banned area were resolute in not smoking if offered a cigarette by their best friend (65.0% vs. 59.2%; p=0.006). Students in the non-banned area reported higher exposure to cigarette smoke at home and in other places compared to those in the banned area (15.8% vs. 10.8%; p=0.008), respectively. A higher percentage of smokers in the banned area expressed a desire to quit smoking, though the difference was not statistically significant. More anti-smoking media messages were reported in the banned area (35.6% vs. 33.6%; p=0.004). Fewer respondents in the banned area had items with cigarette brand logos (13.6% vs. 19.9%; p=0.03).
conclusionThe findings underscore the effectiveness of smoking bans in schools in reducing smoking prevalence among students. This suggests a broader societal shift in attitudes toward smoking, highlighting the need for comprehensive bans as part of public health strategies. However, there remains a need for targeted interventions to address the complexities of smoking behavior in both banned and non-banned areas.
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.