| Literature DB >> 24829777 |
Davoud Shojaezadeh1, Nooshin Peyman2, Mohammad Taghi Shakeri3, Saharnaz Nedjat4, Abbas Mohaddes Hakkak5, Mohammad Hossein Taghdisi6, Hamid Reza Mohaddes Hakkak6, Keivan Shariati7, Ali Taghipour3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health warning labels on cigarette packages are among the most straightforward and important tools to communicate with smokers and various studies have illustrated their efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: Iran; Smoking; Tobacco Products
Year: 2014 PMID: 24829777 PMCID: PMC4005439 DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.14879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran Red Crescent Med J ISSN: 2074-1804 Impact factor: 0.611
Descriptive Specifications of the Study Participants (n = 500)
| Mean ± SD | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 25.03 (9.12) | 14.00 | 58.00 |
|
| 17.43 (5.38) | 8.00 | 45.00 |
|
| 7.53 (7.35) | 0.10 | 38.00 |
|
| 10.12 (8.53) | 2.00 | 40.00 |
|
| 1.33 (1.6) | 0.00 | 8.00 |
Frequency and Frequency Rate of the Responses to the Questionnaire
| Question | Results, No. (%) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Very much | 4 (0.8) |
| Much | 2 (0.4) |
| Average | 6 (1.2) |
| Little | 21 (4.2) |
| Very little | 125 (25) |
| Ineffective | 342 (68.4) |
|
| |
| Very much | 3 (0.6) |
| Much | 8 (1.6) |
| Average | 17 (3.4) |
| Little | 57 (11.4) |
| Very little | 146 (29.2) |
| Ineffective | 269 (53.8) |
|
| |
| Yes | 58 (11.6) |
| No | 442 (88.4) |
|
| |
| With image | 40 (8.0) |
| Without image | 315 (63.0) |
| Indifferent | 145 (29.0) |
|
| |
| Very much | 0 (0.0) |
| Much | 4 (0.8) |
| Average | 24 (4.8) |
| Little | 41 (8.2) |
| Very little | 127 (25.4) |
| Ineffective | 304 (60.8) |
|
| |
| Very much | 4 (0.8) |
| Much | 12 (2.4) |
| Average | 29 (5.8) |
| Little | 59 (11.8) |
| Very little | 135 (27.0) |
| Ineffective | 261 (52.2) |
|
| |
| Yes | 167 (33.4) |
| No | 333 (66.6) |
|
| |
| Always in packages | 108 (21.6) |
| Mostly in packages and occasionally in number | 61 (12.2) |
| Mostly in number and occasionally in packages | 64 (12.8) |
| Always in number | 267 (53.4) |
Comparison of the Responses for Each Question With the Average Age and With the Average Number of Daily Cigarette Use [a]
| Age | Average Number of Daily Cigarette Use | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | P Value | Mean ± SD | P Value | |
|
| 0.174 | 0.130 | ||
| Very much | 24.75 ± 6.95 | 5.00 ± 2.45 | ||
| Much | 25.50 ± 0.71 | 12.00 ± 4.24 | ||
| Average | 31.33 ± 9.52 | 8.17 ± 6.05 | ||
| Little | 27.14 ± 9.15 | 10.14 ± 5.88 | ||
| Very little | 25.81 ± 9.14 | 10.42 ± 7.45 | ||
| Ineffective | 24.51 ± 9.12 | 10.09 ± 9.12 | ||
|
| 0.001 | |||
| Very much | 22.00 ± 5.20 | > 0.001 | 4.00 ± 1.73 | |
| Much | 25.00 ± 9.0 | 9.75 ± 6.25 | ||
| Average | 27.59 ± 9.55 | 10.00 ± 5.96 | ||
| Little | 29.12 ± 8.38 | 11.25 ± 6.66 | ||
| Very little | 25.05 ± 9.54 | 10.77 ± 8.26 | ||
| Ineffective | 24.02 ± 8.83 | 9.61 ± 9.21 | ||
|
| 0.455 | |||
| Very much | 0.62 | |||
| Much | 32.25 ± 7.89 | 9.25 ± 5.06 | ||
| Average | 27.79 ± 9.88 | 9.13 ± 5.75 | ||
| Little | 25.20 ± 7.70 | 9.59 ± 5.44 | ||
| Very little | 25.21 ± 8.47 | 10.46 ± 8.31 | ||
| Ineffective | 24.62 ± 9.47 | 10.14 ± 9.17 | ||
|
| 0.024 | |||
| Very much | 29.05 ± 11.12 | 0.064 | 9.75 ± 4.27 | |
| Much | 25.08 ± 7.98 | 8.25 ± 3.93 | ||
| Average | 27.83 ± 8.51 | 9.76 ± 5.94 | ||
| Little | 26.00 ± 9.05 | 10.25 ± 5.67 | ||
| Very little | 25.22 ± 8.79 | 10.44 ± 7.64 | ||
| Ineffective | 24.33 ± 9.36 | 10.05 ± 9.87 | ||
|
| 0.415 | |||
| With image | 24.78 ± 7.92 | 0.050 | 7.58 ± 4.85 | |
| Without image | 24.20 ± 8.72 | 10.30 ± 8.97 | ||
| Indifferent | 26.91 ± 10.01 | 10.43 ± 8.26 | ||
|
| > 0.001 | |||
| Always in package | 24.69 ± 8.97 | < 0.001 | 22.39± 8.01 | |
| Mostly by packages and occasionally in number | 28.25 ± 7.85 | 13.41 ± 4.67 | ||
| In number | 28.25 ± 7.85 | 13.41 ± 4.67 | ||
| Mostly in number and occasionally in package | 22.72 ± 6.35 | 8.22± 2.33 | ||
| Always in number | 4.86 ± 3.49 | 20.94 ± 6.47 | ||
a Due to the skewness of the age and number of daily cigarette use, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed.
Examining the Relationship Between Preference of Imageless and With Image State of the Packages and the Opinion of the Smokers About its Effect on Their Cigarette Consumption Reduction and Quit [a], [b]
| Preference between imageless and with image packages | P Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| With image | Imageless | Indifferent | ||
|
| < 0.001 | |||
| Very much, much, average | 13 (32.5) | 12 (3.8) | 3 (2.1) | |
| Little, very little, ineffective | 27 (67.5) | 303 (96.2) | 142 (97.9) | |
|
| < 0.001 | |||
| Very much, much, average | 17 (42.5) | 22 (7.0) | 6 (4.1) | |
| Little, very little, ineffective | 23 (57.5) | 293 (93.0) | 139 (95.9) | |
a All data are presented in No. (%).
b Chi-square test was performed.
Examination of the Linear Relationship Between Some Studied Parameters Using the Kendal Tau-b Correlation Coefficient
| Age | Onset age of smoking | Smoking duration | Number of daily cigarette use | Influence in other’s quitting the smoking | Influence in daily smoking decrease of the others | Influence in quitting the smoking of the individual | Influence in daily smoking decrease of the individual | Quit by observing the images | Decrease in daily use by observing the images | Number of quits | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.000 | ||||||||||
|
| 0.414[ | 1.000 | |||||||||
|
| 0.561[ | -0.072[ | 1.000 | ||||||||
|
| 0.499[ | -0.068[ | 0.730[ | 1.000 | |||||||
|
| -0.086[ | -0.089[ | -0.056 | -0.077[ | 1.000 | ||||||
|
| -0.126[ | -0.107[ | -0.102[ | -0.136[ | 0.584[ | 1.000 | |||||
|
| -0.089[ | -0.106[ | -0.037 | -0.065 | 0.558[ | 0.576[ | 1.000 | ||||
|
| -0.103[ | -0.100[ | -0.075[ | -0.119[ | 0.504[ | 0.709[ | 0.689[ | 1.000 | |||
|
| -0.142[ | -0.103[ | -0.105[ | -0.099[ | 0.489[ | 0.445[ | 0.434[ | 0.412[ | 1.000 | ||
|
| -0.244[ | -0.129[ | -0.217[ | -0.240[ | 0.456[ | 0.594[ | 453[ | 0.561[ | 0.498[ | 1.000 | |
|
| 0.551[ | 0.185[ | 0.547[ | 0.417[ | -0.057 | -0.083[ | -0.044 | -0.037 | -0.112[ | -0.172[ | 1.000 |
a 5% Significance level.
b 1% Significance level.