Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42265742›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2026

Stigma toward female smokers: gendered perceptions and moral judgment.

Ibtisam Alamri, Aeshah Alamri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ibtisam AlamriDepartment of Social Studies, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. ealamri@ksu.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7306-3681
Aeshah AlamriDepartment of Psychology, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5212-7909

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study explores the gendered perceptions surrounding female smoking in Saudi Arabia, where tobacco use is shaped not only by health concerns but also by deeply rooted social norms.

methodsEmploying a qualitative approach, the study draws on semi-structured interviews with 35 Saudi adults (20 women and 15 men), aged 18 and older.

resultsThematic analysis revealed a clear gendered double standard in smoking-related stigma. Women's smoking was judged more harshly than men's and was often interpreted as a violation of femininity, modesty, moral propriety, and family reputation. Participants also linked female smoking to poor upbringing, emotional instability, and failure to meet expected reproductive or caregiving roles. In contrast, men's smoking was largely normalised, and at times associated with masculinity, despite its recognised health risks. Viewed through gender role, patriarchal, and social control perspectives, these findings show how smoking stigma functions not only as health-related disapproval but also as a mechanism for regulating women's behaviour and reinforcing gendered expectations.

conclusionsThe findings show that smoking is a socially regulated practice in Saudi Arabia, particularly for women. Tobacco control strategies should therefore be gender-sensitive, non-moralising, and culturally informed. Public health efforts should frame smoking as a health issue, avoid reinforcing gender stereotypes, and provide confidential cessation support, especially for women who may fear social judgment. Addressing these gendered double standards is important for reducing stigma and promoting more equitable health outcomes.

Indexed as

MoralsSmokersSmokingSocial PerceptionSocial StigmaAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSaudi ArabiaYoung AdultFemale smokingGender normsMasculinitySaudi ArabiaStigma

Identifiers

PMID42265742
PMCPMC13504815

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.