These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Do pictorial health warnings on waterpipe tobacco packs matter? Recall effectiveness among Egyptian waterpipe smokers & non-smokers.
    Author: Mostafa A, Mohammed HT, Hussein RS, Hussein WM, Elhabiby M, Safwat W, Labib S, Aboul Fotouh A.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2018; 13(12):e0208590. PubMed ID: 30562376.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Despite the global rise in waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS), the effectiveness of waterpipe tobacco health warnings remain understudied, especially in countries with high WTS rates. Egypt has been employing waterpipe tobacco labelling for a decade, however, their effectiveness is unknown. Our overall aim was to measure the effectiveness of pictorial health warnings (PHWs) on waterpipe tobacco packs (WTPs) through participant memory recall and to investigate whether they induced behavioural responses in waterpipe smokers and deterred uptake of WTS in non-smokers, examining the differentials of effectiveness among socio-demographic subgroups. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted two surveys including 1490 adult current waterpipe smokers, 73 former waterpipe smokers, and 451 non-smokers in Cairo and a rural village in Egypt between 2015-2017. Participants who noticed PHWs on WTPs were asked questions about salience, communication of health risks, public support, cognitive processing, and self-reported behavioural responses (current waterpipe smokers: reduce consumption, forgo a smoke, quit attempts; former waterpipe smokers: quit; non-smokers: deter WTS initiation). Univariate and multivariable statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 35 years, mostly males (90.4%), waterpipe smokers (74.0%) and rural residents (59.3%). Approximately two-thirds of participants noticed PHWs on WTPs. Salience was significantly less among females, urban residents and participants with high literacy. More than three-quarters of participants reported that WTS health risks were communicated through the warnings. At least half of participants cognitively processed the warnings: 56.3% thought of the warnings when WTPs were out of sight; non-smokers understood the warnings (83.2%) and discussed them with others (90.3%) significantly more than current (76.0% and 72.5%, respectively) and former waterpipe smokers (81.0% and 61.9%, respectively). Participants reported that PHWs on WTPs motivated 58.5% of waterpipe smokers to think about quitting; 64.5% to reduce their consumption; 42.2% to forgo a smoke; 24.5% to attempt to quit; 57.1% of former waterpipe smokers to successfully quit; and 59.3% of non-smokers to remain smoke-free. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that inserting PHWs on WTPs is an effective waterpipe tobacco labelling policy. Countries with similarly high rates of WTS should consider adopting WTP PHWs within a comprehensive regulatory framework.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]