ArticleBMJ public health2024
Compliance status of tobacco control laws in the university setting of Bangladesh: an analytical study followed a mixed-method approach.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implementation of National Tobacco Control Laws (NTCLs) in university settings was found to be worse in Bangladesh. Objectives: This study aimed to depict the compliance status of tobacco control laws (TCLs) and the associated factors following the university setting approach in Bangladesh. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with a mixed-method approach among the 385 students (quantitative method), 10 teachers and 10 administrative staff (qualitative method) of Northern University Bangladesh. Data were collected through mobile phone calling (quantitative) and in-depth interviews method (qualitative). Appropriate ethical issues were addressed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to find out the determinants. The study revealed non-satisfactory compliance with TCLs among 56.4% of study subjects which was strongly supported by the outcome of the qualitative approach. Predominant non-satisfactory compliance was found through the explorations of the conditions of buying and selling tobacco (78.4%), pasting no-smoking signage (3.2%), antitobacco advertisement within the university (34.8%) and specific university policy to implement NTCL. Non-satisfactory compliance was found significant among the younger aged (≤21 years: COR/p=2.74/0.01; 95% CI 1.27 to 5.92) from the first-year group (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)/p=2.28/0.02; 95% CI 1.15 to 4.49) who had moderate nicotine dependency (AOR/p=4.04/0.01; 95% CI 1.28 to 12.74), poor knowledge on TCLs (AOR/p=3.57/0.02; 95% CI 1.28 to 9.95) and the respondents who suggested family guidance (AOR/p=1.77/0.06; 95% CI 0.97 to 3.22) might be a sustainable way to minimise tobacco consumption in the university setting. Conclusions: The study revealed some crucial factors for the non-satisfactory compliance status towards TCLs in the university setting. This empirical outcome and evaluation strategy can guide to plan of future large-scale studies, which may lead to implementing effective intervention programmes focusing on the development of a tobacco-free environment in the university setting.
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.