| Literature DB >> 28749630 |
Saideh Mahoozi1, Mohammad Heidari, Ladan Naseh.
Abstract
Background: Wrong attitudes and beliefs about the less carcinogenic effects of hookah smoking comparing to cigarette, easy availability, low cost, and other factors have caused that the usage of hookah smoking increase a lot in our country. Objective: This study has been done with the purpose of examining the influence of education about carcinogenic effects of hookah smoking on the awareness, attitude, and performance of women who refer to the healthcare and medical treatment centers. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Hookah; education; awareness; attitude; performance
Year: 2017 PMID: 28749630 PMCID: PMC5648406 DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.7.1967
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ISSN: 1513-7368
Sample Characteristics (n=60)
| Variable | Frequency | Variable | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | ||
| Age (years) | Income sufficiency | ||
| 20-29 | 33 (55) | Yes | 25 (41.7) |
| 30-39 | 19 (31.7) | No | 35 (58.3) |
| 40 ≤ | 8 (13.3) | Hookah smoking in recent months | |
| Age of first use (years) | Yes | 60 (100) | |
| 20 > | 38 (63.3) | No | 0 (0) |
| 20-24 | 10 (16.7) | History of consumption | |
| 25 ≤ | 12 (20) | 1 > | 11 (18.3) |
| Consumer incentives | 1-5 | 20 (33.3) | |
| Friends | 34 (56.7) | 5-10 | 18 (30) |
| Spouse | 3 (0.5) | 10 ≤ | 11 (18.3) |
| Myself | 12 (0.20) | History of consumption the family and friends | |
| Family | 11 (18.3) | Yes | 56 (93.3) |
| Family relationship with the consumer hookah | No | 4 (6.7) | |
| Sister/Brother | 7 (11.7) | First start taking | |
| Spouse | 10 (16.7) | Friends | 47 (78.3) |
| Friends | 25 (41.7) | Parents | 4 (6.7) |
| Parents | 18 (30) | Spouse | 4 (6.7) |
| Decision to withdrawal | Loneliness | 5 (8.3) | |
| Yes | 50 (83.3) | Level of education | |
| No | 10 (16.7) | Illiterate | 3 (0.5) |
| High school diploma | 27 (45) | ||
| Tobacco type | Diploma | 14 (23.3) | |
| Local | 30 (50) | Associate Degree | 13 (21.7) |
| Fruity | 13 (21.7) | Bachelor’s Degree or higher | 3 (0.5) |
| Combination of both | 17 (28.3) | ||
Awareness, Attitude and Performance of the Research Units before and after the Intervention
| Before intervention | After intervention | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Indicator | Group | N (%) | N (%) |
| Awareness | Low (16.4>) | 6 (10) | 0 (0) |
| Moderate (16.4-33.1) | 42 (70) | 0 (0) | |
| High (33.1<) | 12 (20) | 100 (60) | |
| Mean ± SD | 24.72 ± 8.41 | 45.98 ± 2.1 | |
| Attitude | Positive (45<) | 60 (100) | 3 (5) |
| Negative (45>) | 0 (0) | 57 (95) | |
| Mean ± SD | 65.5 ± 4.55 | 61.15 ± 8.18 | |
| Performance | Favorable | 15 (25) | 44 (73.3) |
| Unfavorable | 45 (75) | 16 (26.7) | |
| Mean ± SD | 2.72 ± 2.03 | 5.13 ± 1.79 |
Comparisons between of the Research Units of Awareness, Attitude and Performance before and after the Intervention
| Indicator | Statistics | N | Mean ± SD | Mean difference | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Before intervention | 60 | 24.72± 8.41 | 23.21 | 0.001 |
| After intervention | 60 | 45.98 ± 2.1 | |||
| Attitude | Before intervention | 60 | 65.5 ± 4.55 | 28.25 | 0.001 |
| After intervention | 60 | 31.15 ± 8.18 | |||
| Performance | Before intervention | 60 | 2.72 ± 2.02 | 3 | 0.001 |
| After intervention | 60 | 5.13 ± 1.79 |