↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge About the Waterpipe (Hookah), a Qualitative Assessment Among Community Workers in a Major Urban Center in Canada

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Knowledge About the Waterpipe (Hookah), a Qualitative Assessment Among Community Workers in a Major Urban Center in Canada
Published in
Journal of Community Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10900-015-0143-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fadi Hammal, T. Cameron Wild, Barry A. Finegan

Abstract

Waterpipe (WP) use has surged in popularity since the introduction of flavoured shisha. It is now an increasingly popular form of smoking among youth in North America. Health professionals/educators knowledge about the WP may well be inadequate. This study, using qualitative methods, sought to explore the knowledge and attitude of leaders in the community toward the WP. Family physicians, pharmacists, tobacco counsellors, social workers and educators were invited to participate in a one-one interview using open-ended questions. A total of 27 interviews were conducted. Individuals from Eastern Mediterranean backgrounds raised doubt about the overemphasised cultural significance of the WP and perceived this as a marketing strategy by industry. Most felt that WP smokers believed the WP to be less harmful than cigarettes and that the use of flavoured tobacco was motivating people to smoke. Participants believed that education should be directed at the general public and healthcare professionals, suggesting school programs and the use of social media to inform young smokers. Most thought that the current practices regarding packaging and second hand smoke exposure are confusing. They identified the lack of knowledge, poor enforcement procedures, "so called cultural aspects" and the economic impact of banning the WP on small businesses as barriers to change. Despite the awareness of an increase in WP use, our participants recognized that little has been done to curb this problem. Our findings emphasize the need for further education and better legislation to regulate WP use and availability.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 27 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 28 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,746,201
of 25,390,692 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#405
of 1,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,991
of 392,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,692 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 392,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.