ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Associated factors of smoking behaviors among industrial workers in Myanmar: the role of modifying factors and individual beliefs, guided by the health belief model.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The quality of video information related to smoking cessation on mainstream short-video platforms in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic inequalities in product-specific tobacco use in Myanmar: a nationally representative study of the 2015-2016 demographic and health survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Behavioral smoking cessation outcomes among industrial workers in Myanmar following a health belief model-based health education and mobile phone short message service intervention.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Association between estimated glucose disposal rate and the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: insight from cross-sectional and retrospective cohort studies.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Smoking is a preventable behavioral risk factor for both communicable and noncommunicable diseases, with particularly strong impacts on noncommunicable diseases. We aimed to examine the associations between modifying factors, individual beliefs, and smoking behaviors, including quit attempts and smoking intensity, among industrial workers in Myanmar. Methods: Our cross-sectional study utilized baseline data collected in 2018 from a longitudinal quasi-experimental study involving 292 male industrial workers in Mandalay, Myanmar. Employing the Health Belief Model, we examined the associations of modifying factors (age, sex, marital status, education, income, smoking initiation age, duration, quit intention, and health knowledge) and individual beliefs (perceived susceptibility, severity, barriers, benefits, and self-efficacy) with smoking behaviors, specifically quit attempts and smoking intensity. Data were collected via structured interviews and analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounders, with significance set at Results: The median age of participants was 28 years, with 90.4% not having attempted to quit smoking and 47.6% identified as high-intensity smokers. Health knowledge was significantly associated with lower odds of being a high-intensity smoker in both crude (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.88, Conclusion: Our study reveals complex interactions between modifying factors and individual beliefs associated with smoking behaviors among industrial workers in Myanmar. The need for tailored health education interventions for industrial workers to enhance health knowledge and self-efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.