ArticleBMJ open2025
How do focus groups of adult males in Bangladesh perceive a standard bidi pack versus existing bidi packs.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo qualitatively explore Bangladeshi adult males' perceptions of existing
designFocus group study
settingMale participants were recruited from predetermined low-income urban and rural areas in three geographic divisions (Dhaka, Khulna, Sylhet) of Bangladesh.
participants98 males participated in 14 focus group discussions (FGDs). An equal number of groups were conducted with males who currently used bidis (n=7 groups) and males who never used tobacco (n=7 groups). Each group had 6-8 participants. For FGDs with males who used bidis, participants were eligible if they were at least 18 years old and reported smoking bidis on at least one of the past 30 days. For FGDs with males who never used tobacco, participants were eligible if they were between 18 and 35 years old to capture those at most risk of initiating tobacco and reported never using any tobacco.
interventionParticipants were shown four existing bidi packs sold in Bangladesh and one standard bidi pack. The groups were asked to first rank and discuss the existing bidi packs in terms of
resultsAll groups, regardless of bidi use status, discussed the limited noticeability of HWLs on existing bidi packs, which reduced perceived product harm. In contrast, most groups discussed how the standard pack HWL was clearly printed, easy to see and increased perceived harm. Overall, most groups across bidi use status found that the standard pack was as attractive or more attractive than the existing bidi packs, particularly noting that the standard pack shape, colour and cardboard material were attractive.
conclusionsStandardising the size and shape of bidi packs has the potential to improve HWL compliance and increase harm perceptions. Complementing a standard bidi pack policy with a plain packaging policy (eg, packs only sold in a single drab olive colour), as well as efforts to enhance HWL compliance at the point of manufacturer, could further reduce product appeal and enhance harm perceptions.
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.