IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0208590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do pictorial health warnings on waterpipe tobacco packs matter? Recall effectiveness among Egyptian waterpipe smokers & non-smokers

Author

Listed:
  • Aya Mostafa
  • Heba Tallah Mohammed
  • Rasha Saad Hussein
  • Wafaa Mohamed Hussein
  • Mahmoud Elhabiby
  • Wael Safwat
  • Sahar Labib
  • Aisha Aboul Fotouh

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Aya Mostafa & Heba Tallah Mohammed & Rasha Saad Hussein & Wafaa Mohamed Hussein & Mahmoud Elhabiby & Wael Safwat & Sahar Labib & Aisha Aboul Fotouh, 2018. "Do pictorial health warnings on waterpipe tobacco packs matter? Recall effectiveness among Egyptian waterpipe smokers & non-smokers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208590
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208590
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208590&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0208590?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208590. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.