Tobacco Control in Turkey

Water pipe smoking among public versus private university students in Ankara, Turkey: an online survey

Background

Water pipe smoking has become a global public health problem as its popularity increased over time, especially among youth. The objective of our study was to estimate water pipe tobacco smoking prevalence and to assess socioeconomic factors associated with ever water pipe smoking by public and private university students in Ankara, Turkey.

Methods

This descriptive study was based on a survey conducted among public (n=2685) and private (n=2485) university students via an online questionnaire on demographics and water pipe consumption patterns. For every student in the sample, a socioeconomic status index was calculated using principal component analysis. Binary logistic regressions for the outcome variable of ever-using water pipe yielded estimates of adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the associated factors such as the respondent’s age, gender, university type, and socioeconomic status.

Results

The prevalence of ever use of water pipe was 69.1% (95% CI: 67.2-70.9%) among private and 59.1% (95% CI: 57.2-60.9%) among public university students. A substantial share of ever users were current users (25.5% in private versus 21.6% in public, p=0.008). On average, private university students had higher socioeconomic status than public university students (for example, access to a car (51.7% versus 35.8%, p=0.008), financial support from family (71.5% versus 65.1%, p<0.001)), also demonstrated by a higher socioeconomic status index. Being a private university student (aOR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.38-1.79), older (aORs 1.50 to 2.39, p<0.001), male (aOR 2.36, 95% CI:2.06-2.70), as well as having greater financial resources, such as having access to a car (aOR 1.24, 95% CI:1.07-1.42), or having income support from family (aOR 1.32, 95% CI:1.13-1.54), were associated with ever-using water pipe. A higher SES index was significantly associated with higher odds of ever using water pipe among both private (aOR 1.13, 95% CI:1.06,1.20) and public university (aOR 1.12, 95% CI:1.06,1.19) students.

Conclusions

Water pipe smoking was common in both public and private universities; however, private university students had higher odds of ever using water pipe. There is an urgent need to implement evidence-based interventions, taking into account the socioeconomic status of young adults, to prevent them from water pipe smoking.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13616-9.

Treatment adherence and short-term outcomes of smoking cessation outpatient clinic patients

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have shown that adherence to treatment is fundamental to success in smoking cessation. However, smoking cessation medication regimens are limited significantly by the struggle to adhere to them. This study was conducted to evaluate the factors associated with treatment adherence and quitting success in a group of patients that applied to our smoking cessation outpatient clinic (SCC).

METHODS

Patients that applied to SCC between April 2015 and December 2016 who were evaluated, found suitable for smoking cessation interventions and started pharmacological treatment were included in this study. Only those who could be reached by phone three months after their first application became participants. Those who had used the prescribed treatment for at least 30 days were grouped as treatment-adherent.

RESULTS

In total, data for 346 patients were evaluated. Mean (±SD) age was 44.3±13.9 years; most of them were male (63%), primary school graduated (36.1%), self-employed (43.7%), and had no comorbid diseases (71%). Bupropion was started in 52% of the patients, that rate was 35.8% for varenicline and 12.1% for a combination of the nicotine patch and gum. Mean days for treatment use was 20.9±18.5; 59% of the patients were non-adherent to their treatment and 51.7% had only one control visit number. Adverse reactions due to treatment were recorded in 25% of participants, and at their third month 37.9% of them had quit smoking. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, increase in control visit number, absence of adverse reaction, and varenicline use, were each associated with higher treatment adherence (p<0.001) and only being in the treatment-adherent group was associated with quit success (OR=3.01, 95% CI: 1.88–4.81, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that most patients did not use their prescribed SC treatments adequately; a main factor that affects quit success is treatment adherence. There is a need for closer monitoring and follow-up to ensure adequate use of treatment of patients.

How does reimbursement status affect smoking cessation interventions? A real-life experience from the Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, outpatient smoking cessation clinics (SCCs) in Turkey have been extended countrywide. Initially, only counseling was covered under health insurance. In 2011 and 2015, free varenicline and bupropion preparations were distributed to SCCs, periodically. In the current study we aimed to compare outcomes between the free and paid medication periods.

METHODS

Patients applied to the local SCC in a secondary health care unit between June 2014 and June 2017. They were evaluated for SC interventions and had phone visits after their third month; these records were included in the study. Patients were grouped and evaluated according to medication’s reimbursement status: free medication period (FP) and paid medication period (PMP).

RESULTS

In total, 733 patients applied to the SCC, 77.7% of them had applied during the FP. Analyses were made involving 417 patients who had records of third-month phone visit. Mean age of the patients was 44.0±13.7 years with the majority of patients (65%) being male. Sociodemographic characteristics of patients in both groups were not statistically different, while the percentage of patients with comorbid diseases was lower in the FP group (p<0.05). Treatment choices were different— the bupropion-prescribed group’s rate was similar in both periods (53.5% in PMP vs 52.0% in FP), however varenicline was mostly prescribed in the FP (35.8% vs 14.1%) while nicotine replacement therapy was mostly prescribed in the PMP (32.4% vs 12.1%) (p<0.05). Patients who used the advised treatment for at least 30 days (treatment adherent) and the rate of quitters at the third month were higher in FP (p<0.05) from univariate analysis, however these differences were not statistically significant when a multivariate analysis was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the free medication period increased the quit attempts but the increased in treatment adherence and quit success of the participating smokers was not obvious.

Prevalence and determinants of smoking status among university students: Artvin Çoruh University sample

Background and aim

Smoking is still a public health concern in many countries, especially among young adults. Consequently, we determined what factors affect university students’ smoking behavior in Turkey.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted between March and June 2017 using a simple random sampling method. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on participants’ (N = 2,505; mean age = 20.9 ± 2.5 years; 58.9% women) sociodemographic characteristics, cigarette smoking status, and related risk factors. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed with the Backward likelihood-ratio method.

Results

Students were completing either two- or four-year degrees (45.6% and 54.4%, respectively). Regarding familial smoking behavior, 36.1% had a father who smoked, 10.3% had a mother who smoked, and 15.0% had siblings who smoked. Among participants, 27.9% were current smokers: 46% of the men and 15.3% of the women. Mean smoking onset age was 16.34 ± 2.72 years (15.65 ± 2.67 years for men and 16.34 ± 2.72 for women (p < .05). Mean Fagerströmtest score was 4.43 ± 1.82, and women had lower test scores than did men (p < .05). After controlling for potential confounders in multivariate analyses, five factors were significantly positively associated with current smoking: being a man (odds ratio (OR): 3.43; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.75–4.28), studying in a two-year program (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.39–2.18), having at least one immediate family member who smoked (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.31–2.04), having all close friends who smoked (OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.40–2.33), and alcohol consumption (OR: 4.39; 95% CI: 3.51–5.49).

Conclusion

There was a higher smoking rate among our study population, both compared to similar national studies and Turkey’s overall smoking rate. Underlying factors should be evaluated via qualitative studies and preventive strategies should be implemented accordingly.

Tobacco Control Policies in Turkey in Terms of MPOWER

Tobacco consumption is a worldwide health problem threatening all, making no differentiation between gender, age, race, and cultural or educational background. Tobacco is responsible for 7 million deaths each year. Over 6 million deaths are directly related to tobacco consumption, and over 890.000 deaths involve non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke. Although the harmful effects of cigarettes on human health have been confirmed repeatedly, still over 1 billion people worldwide are tobacco consumers, and according the World Health Organization (WHO), unless a strict action plan is implemented, tobacco-related deaths will rise to more than 8 million per year by 2030. The WHO published the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2003, which could form a common policy to guide countries in the struggle against tobacco. Tobacco control in the Convention is defined as "a range of supply, demand and harm reduction strategies that aim to improve the health of a population by eliminating or reducing their consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke." This agreement was adopted by Turkey in 2004 with the Law No. 5261. In 2008, the WHO published the MPOWER package, containing the following six basic strategies, which are parallel with the Tobacco Framework Convention measures and practices: Monitor tobacco use.Protect people from tobacco smoke.Offer help to quit tobacco use.Warn about the dangers of tobacco.Enforce bans on tobacco advertising and promotion.Raise taxes on tobacco products. In the 2013 Global Tobacco Control Report by the WHO, Turkey was announced as the first country achieving a high level of success in the six MPOWER strategies, and other countries were advised to adopt the Turkish policies. Here we review Turkey's MPOWER tobacco control strategies one by one.

Violation of the Tobacco Control Law by Drivers in Vehicles in Two Streets in İzmir: A Descriptive Study

OBJECTIVES

After signing and approving the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Turkey amended laws on tobacco control in 2008 and also expanded the smoking ban in 2013 to include drivers in all vehicles. Four years later, this amendment does not seem as effective. The aim of this study was to observe violation of the law by the drivers and to analyze the association between gender of the driver, type of the vehicle, approximate age group definition of the passenger (either child or adult), and the law violation in two streets in Konak district, İzmir, Turkey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, two observer teams were located in two different busy streets on the same afternoon and they collected data on the violation of the law, gender of the driver, approximate age group definition of the passengers (either adult or child), and type of the vehicle (special, taxi, or other commercial). Logistic regression for the violation of the law was conducted.

RESULTS

Law violation prevalence is 7.2%. In univariate analysis, the gender of the driver and having at least one child as a passenger were associated with the violation of the law. In multivariate analysis, not having children increases (OR: 8.4) the risk of the violation of the law.

CONCLUSION

The violation of the law was high, but the drivers seemed to be aware of the harms of smoking by looking at the increased risk of the violation in vehicles, in which no child was carried as passengers.

A comparison of the efficacy of varenicline and bupropion and an evaluation of the effect of the medications in the context of the smoking cessation programme

BACKGROUND

Within the context of the support program for smoking cessation, initiated by the Turkish Ministry of Health in 2011, those who present at 'smoking cessation' centres and are found to be suitable for pharmacological treatment are given varenicline and bupropion free of charge. As the smoking cessation programme is centralized, the selection of the medication is made randomly to provide a fixed distribution rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of both varenicline and bupropion in smoking cessation and to evaluate the effect of the smoking cessation programme.

METHODS

A total of 405 individuals who met the study criteria were included in the study. Smoking habits and degree of dependence were determined in all the participants with the Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence (FTND) and bupropion or varenicline therapy was initiated in those who were eligible. Patients were followed up at 15 days then at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months after smoking cessation. A level of CO < 5 ppm and 'point prevalence abstinence' were used as the criteria of success for smoking cessation and this evaluation showed the non-smoking status in the previous 7 days.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 35.19 ± 7.73 years and 82.8% (n = 334) were male. Of the participants, 60.2% (n = 244) were given varenicline and 39.8% (n = 161) bupropion. The mean FTND and package/year was not significantly different between the groups. The rates of success in the 1st and 2nd weeks, and 1st, 3rd and 6th months were significantly higher in the varenicline group than in the bupropion group (p < 0.05). At the end of one year, the rate of smoking cessation was determined as 13.9% (n = 34) in the varenicline group and 6.2% (n = 10) in the bupropion gruop. The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.015). At the end of 1 year when the previous 7 days smoking status was evaluated with the 'point prevalence abstinence' measurement as the success criteria, success rates were 20.5% with varenicline and 18.6% with bupropion and the difference was not significant (p = 0.646). The individuals who used the medications for 45 days or longer were more successful in smoking cessation (p < 0.001). The most common reasons given for discontinuing the medication were the side-effects (31.5%). No significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the side-effects observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the rates of smoking cessation in all the other control points were higher with varenicline than with bupropion, no significant difference was found between the success rates of varenicline and bupropion used in smoking cessation based on the last 7 days at the end of one year. Those who used the medications for 45 days or longer were more successful in smoking cessation.