ArticleBMC public health2025
Student perspectives on smoking and second-hand smoke in Qatar: a participatory photovoice study in a multicultural university context.
Article in BMC public health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTobacco use among university students presents a persistent public health challenge, particularly in settings where smoking is socially normalized despite strong regulatory frameworks. Qatar, with its multicultural population and progressive tobacco laws, offers a unique context for exploring these dynamics. However, little research has examined how young adults in the region experience and navigate smoking behaviours in everyday life. The study explores how university students’ perception and experience of smoking and second-hand smoke exposure, and examined barriers and facilitators to cessation within their academic and social environments.
methodsA qualitative study using photovoice methodology was conducted within a community-based participatory research framework. Undergraduate students aged 18–24 at a large national university in Qatar were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. After a preparatory workshop, participants captured photographs representing their experiences with smoking or second-hand smoke, followed by semi-structured, photo-elicitation interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis of interview transcripts and photographs using a collaborative coding process. Credibility was strengthened through triangulation of visual and narrative data, member checking, and peer debriefing.
resultsTwenty-two students (12 females, 10 males; 9 smokers, 13 non-smokers) participated. Thematic analysis revealed five interrelated themes: (1) health awareness and personal triggers (2), social and cultural influences (3), environmental and economic consequences (4), prevention, cessation, and support, and (5) policy and behavioural regulation. Although students were aware of the health risks of tobacco use, many continued to smoke due to stress relief, peer influence, and cultural normalization. Environmental concerns such as litter and second-hand smoke exposure were widespread but inconsistently acted upon. Most participants expressed interest in quitting but reported limited awareness or trust in available cessation resources. Institutional policies were inconsistently enforced and undermined by contradictory role modelling from faculty and peers.
conclusionsUniversity students in Qatar described smoking behaviours shaped by emotional triggers, academic stress, peer influence, and cultural normalization. Despite awareness of health risks, smoking persisted. Participants reported widespread exposure to second-hand smoke, limited trust in cessation resources, and inconsistent enforcement of institutional policies across campus settings.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.