Sigara İçen Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Sigara Paketleri Üzerindeki Uyarıcı Resimler ve Yazılar ile İlgili Düşünceleri ve Nikotin Bağımlılık Düzeyleri

Amaç: Bu çalışma, sigara kullanan hemşirelik öğrencilerinin sigara paketlerinin üzerindeki uyarıcı resimler ve yazılar ile ilgili düşünceleri, bu uyarıların sigara kullanımı üzerine etkisi ve nikotin bağımlılık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Yöntem: Araştırmanın örneklemi sigara kullanan 82 hemşirelik öğrencisinden oluşmuş ve evrenin %89.1'ine ulaşılmıştır. Veriler araştırmacılar tarafından oluşturulan anket formu ve Fagerström Nikotin Bağımlılık Testi (FNBT) kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Bulgular: Sigara paketleri üzerindeki resimlerin çoğunun etkili olmadığı ve etkili olarak belirtilen resimlerin korku ögesinin yer aldığı resimler olduğu belirlenmiştir. Resimleri gördükten sonra sigarayı bırakmayı düşünenlerin oranı %19.5’tir. Günlük tüketilen sigara sayısı ve sigaraya bağlı rahatsızlık sayısı ile FNBT puan ortalaması arasında pozitif korelasyon bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Sigara paketleri üzerindeki uyarıcı resimler genel olarak etkisiz bulunmuştur. Sigara paketlerinde dramatik, korkutucu ve daha ciddi sağlık sorunlarının gösterildiği daha fazla yer kaplayan görüntülerin kullanılması tütün ürünlerinin kullanımını azaltmada etkili olabilir

Nursing Students’ Views about Graphic Warnings and Texts on Cigarettes and Their Nicotine Dependence

Objective: This study was conducted to determine smoker nursing students’ thoughts about graphic warnings and texts on cigarette packs, impact of these warnings on their cigarette consumption and their nicotine dependence levels. Method: The sample of the study consisted of 82 smoker nursing students and 89.1% of aimed population has been reached. Data was collected by both the questionnaire developed by the researchers and Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND). Results: Most graphic warnings on the packs were ineffective and the one found to be effective pictures are those containing the horror element. The rate of those who think about quitting smoking after seeing the pictures is 19.5%. A positive correlation was found between the number of cigarettes consumed per day, the number of illnesses due to smoking and the mean FTND score. Conclusion: Graphic warnings on cigarette packs were generally found to be ineffective in reducing smoking. Printing dramatic, frightening and indicating more serious health problems images that span more space on cigarette packs can be effective in reducing the use of tobacco products.

Keywords:

Students, nursing tobacco use disorder, tobacco products, Turkey,

PDF

___

1. Keten HS, Sucaklı MH, Ersoy Ö et al. Efficicacy of an education program on smoking and its hazards: Evaluation of a conference. Kafkas Journal of Medical Sciences 2014; 4: 14-18.
2. World Health Organization. Tobacco. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco. Accessed date: 11.08.2020.
3. Çifçi S, Bayram Değer V, Saka G, Ceylan A. Smoking prevalance and affecting factors among nursing school students. Van Medical Journal 2018; 25: 89-99.
4. World Health Organization. Non-age-standardized estimates of current tobacco use, tobacco smoking and cigarette smoking. Data by country. https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.TOBNONAGESTDCURR?lang=en. Accessed date: 11.08.2020.
5. Yanbaeva DG, Dentener MA, Creutzberg EC et al. Systemic effects of smoking. Chest 2007; 131: 1557-1566.
6. Kolkesen Şahin Ö, Çına Aksoy M. Effects of smoking on wound healing after oral surgical procedures. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2014; 24: 434-441.
7. World Health Organization. (2017). WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2017; monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies. Available from: URL:https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2017/en/ Accessed date: 24.06.2019.
8. Doğanay S, Sözmen K, Kalaça S, Ünal B. How has the prevalence of smoking changed in Turkey? Turkish Journal of Public Health 2012; 10: 93-115.
9. Ağırman E, Gençer MZ, Arıca S. The smoking behaviors and dependence levels of young people who apply family medicine outpatient clinics. Ahi Evran Medical Journal 2018; 2: 58-66.
10. Elbi H, Aktas A, Rahman S et al. Self-reported prevalence of tobacco use among university students. İzmir Tepecik Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Dergisi 2018; 28: 33-38.
11. Çapık C, Özbıçakcı Ş. Factors effecting levels of smoking addiction of students attending to the nursing high school. Journal of Human Sciences 2007; 4(2): 1-12.
12. Çapık C, Cingil D. Cigarette smoking, nicotine dependency level and associated factors among nursing students. Kafkas Journal of Medical Sciences 2013; 3(2): 55-61.
13. Gerçek C, Doğan N. Effect of the written and combined warnings on the cigarette pockets on university students. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 2012; 12: 2573-2584.
14. Başol E, Can S. The economic impact of tobacco consumption and a determination of tobacco control policies. Balkan Journal of Social Sciences 2015; 4: 1-7.
15. Bilir N, Kaplan B, Küçük Biçer B, et al. Opinions of a group of high school students in Ankara on pictorial warnings on cigarette packages. Turk Thorac J 2013; 14: 127-133.
16. Çelik R, Durmaz M, Yorulmaz R, Polat FN. Visual communication within the risk warning on cigarette packs transmitted messages smoking effect of nature. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences 2016; 3: 1-22.
17. Önsüz MF, Topuzoğlu A, Algan A, et al. Evaluation of the relationship between perception of tobacco packaging warning messages and the nicotine addiction levels of smokers. Marmara Medical Journal 2009; 22: 111-122.
18. Özpulat F, Bilir N. Opinions of university students regarding pictorial warnings on cigarettes packs. Journal of Human Sciences 2017; 14: 987-999.
19. Van Dessel P, Smith CT, De Houwer J. Graphic cigarette pack warnings do not produce more negative implicit evaluations of smoking compared to text-only warnings. PloS One 2018; 13: e0194627.
20. Yong HH, Borland R, Thrasher JF et al. Mediational pathways of the impact of cigarette warning labels on quit attempts. Health Psychol 2014; 33: 1410-1420.
21. Akan H, Hayran O, Özcan M, Acar U. Smoking prevalence among university students: a crosssectional study. Türkiye Aile Hekimliği Dergisi 2010; 14: 71-76.
22. Morsünbül Ü. Determining the demographic and psychosocial factors that influence smoking addiction. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2019; 6: 163-173.
23. Chinwong D, Mookmanee N, Chongpornchai J, Chinwong SA. Comparison of gender differences in smoking behaviors, intention to quit, and nicotine dependence among Thai university students. J Addict 2018; 2018: 8081670.
24. Tarı Selçuk K, Avcı D, Mercan Y. Smoking addiction among university students and the willingness and self-efficacy to quit smoking. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences 2018; 8: 36-43.
25. Uysal MA, Kadakal F, Karşidağ C et al. Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: reliability in a Turkish sample and factor analysis. Tuberk Toraks 2004; 52: 115-121.
26. Mazlum FS, Mazlum Ö. Effect of visual and written warnings on cigarette boxes on university students and some suggestions. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy 2013; 9: 12-32.
27. Alaouie H, Afifi RA, Haddad P et al. Effectiveness of pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs among Lebanese school and university students. Tob Control 2015; 24: e72-e80.
28. Çobaner AÇ. Using fear appeal in health communication: semiotic analysis of anti-smoking visuals displayed on cigarette packages. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi 2013; 37: 211-235.
29. Drovandi A, Teague PA, Glass B, Malau-Aduli B. Smoker perceptions of health warnings on cigarette packaging and cigarette sticks: A four-country study. Tob Induc Dis 2019; 17: 23.
30. Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB et al. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control 2016; 25: 341-354.
31. Byrne S, Greiner Safi A, Kemp D et al. Effects of varying color, imagery, and text of cigarette package warning labels among socioeconomically disadvantaged middle school youth and adult smokers. Health Commun 2019; 34: 306-316.
32. Öncel SY, Gebizlioğlu ÖL, Alioğlu FA. Risk factors for smoking behavior among university students. Turk J Med Sci 2011; 41: 1071-1080.
33. Selçuk KT, Avcı D, Mercan Y. Üniversite öğrencilerinde sigara bağımlılığı, sigarayı bırakmaya yönelik istek ve öz-etkililik. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences 2017; 8: 36-43.
34. Karadoğan D, Önal Ö, Kanbay Y. Prevalence and determinants of smoking status among university students: Artvin Çoruh University sample. Plos One 2018; 13: e0200671.
35. Rojas NL, Killen JD, Haydel FK, Robinson TN. Nicotine dependence among adolescent smokers. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998; 152: 151–156.
36. Maracy M, Etedali F, Safaie F, et al. Risk factors associated with Fagerström status with nicotine dependence in referred smokers for cessation. International Journal of Health System and Disaster Management 2013; 1: 174-179.
37. Lamin RAC, Othman N, Othman CN. Effect of smoking behavior on nicotine dependence level among adolescents. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014; 153: 189-198.