Table 3.
Public opinion on the noticeability of graphic health warnings and their suggestions of alternate placement locations among adults (n=1048) in Cairo, Egypt, 2015
| Phase II N=700 N (%) | Phase III N=348 N (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| In your opinion, will waterpipe smokers notice GHW | ||
| No | 364 (52) | 186 (53.4) |
| Non-WPS | 273 (75.0) | 109 (58.6) |
| WPS | 91 (25.0) | 77(41.4) |
| p-value* | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| Will the GHW be more noticed if placed differently | ||
| Yes | 482 (68.9) | 277 (79.6) |
| Non-WPS | 369 (76.6) | 156 (56.3) |
| WPS | 113(23.4) | 121 (43.7) |
| p-value* | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| If yes, please indicate where | N=411 | N=277 |
| Different placement on the pack itself | 78 (19.0) | 119 (43.0) |
| Non-WPS | 62(80.9) | 72 (60.5) |
| WPS | 16.5 | 47 (39.5) |
| On the waterpipe device or its accessories | 49 (11.9) | 130 (46.9) |
| Non-WPS | 29 (59.1) | 66(50.8) |
| WPS | 20 (40.8) | 64(49.2) |
| Other (e.g., inside cafés, in public places) | 284 (69.1) | 28 (10.1) |
| Non-WPS | 185 (65.1) | 18(64.3) |
| WPS | 99 (34.9) | 10(35.7) |
| p-value* | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| Do you think any of the following placement methods will be more noticed by a waterpipe smoker (Figure 1 shown) | ||
| Yes | 564 (80.6) | 284 (81.6) |
| If yes, which one (more than one option allowed) ** | N=564 | N=284 |
| Glass body | 136 (24.1) | 64 (22.5) |
| Metal holder | 148 (26.2) | 93 (32.7) |
| Mouthpiece | 201 (35.6) | 103 (36.3) |
| Hose | 68 (12.1) | 19 (6.7) |
| Menu | 67 (11.9) | 5 (1.8) |
*
P-value determines significant difference between WPS and non-WPS in each phase.
**
Total doesn’t add up to total number of participants as they were invited to choose all that apply for placement spots.