DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Is There Any Impact Of The Gutkha Ban on Users and Vendors in Rangareddy District? A Cross Sectional Study

  • Reddy, Parthasarathi (Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery) ;
  • Anjum, Shakeel (Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery) ;
  • Monica, M (Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery) ;
  • Rao, K Yadav (Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery) ;
  • Akula, Sheetal (Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery) ;
  • Pravallika, T Sai (Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery)
  • Published : 2016.11.01

Abstract

Introduction: Gutkha contains harmful and carcinogenic chemicals and oral cancer caused by tobacco usage has been reported as a major preventable cause of death worldwide by the World Health Organization. The Telangana state government implemented a ban on gutkha usage starting in 2013 but how effective this ban has been remains unclear. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the actual impact of the gutkha ban on users and vendors. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted among gutkha users and tobacco vendors in Ranga Reddy district, Telangana. Based on a pilot study the sample size was determined as 368 and 384 for users and vendors respectively. Two separate questionnaires were administered to these groups. The parameters studied mainly included knowledge regarding the ban, and its impact. Results: About 49.1% of the users were aware of the ban on gutkha. Newspapers were the main source of information regarding the ban as reported by 45.3% of users. After the ban, 29.8% of gutkha users switched to other tobacco products. Awareness of health hazards and non-availability of gutkha was the most important reason stated for quitting or reducing consumption. Conclusion: The perspective of ban when visualized from the users point of view depicted a negative impact while the vendors portrayed a positive impact. Considering the addictive potential of the ingredients of gutkha, recording the effects of the ban on regular consumers and determining whether they can still obtain the products by illicit trade, would be noteworthy for implementation of strict rules.

Keywords

Tobacco ban;gutkha;tobacco use

References

  1. Sreeramreddy CT, Kishore PV, Paudel J, Menezes RG (2008). Prevalence and correlates of tobacco use amongst junior collegiates in twin cities of western Nepal: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. BMC, 14, 1-8.
  2. Townsend J (1996). Price and consumption of tobacco. Br Med Bull, 52, 132-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a011521
  3. Wakefield MA, Spittal MJ, Yong HH, Durkin SJ, Borland R (2011). Effects of mass media campaign exposure intensity and durability on quit attempts in a population-based cohort study. Health Educ Res, 26, 988-97. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyr054
  4. WHO (2015). Prevalence of tobacco use [Online].
  5. WHO (2010). Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) [Online]. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
  6. Agarwal A, Tijare M, Saxena A, Rubens M, Ahuja R (2015). Exploratory study to evaluate changes in serum lipid levels as early diagnostic and/or prognostic Indicators for oral submucous fibrosis and cancer among gutkha consumers in India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 6439-44. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.15.6439
  7. Bhaumik S (2013). Ban on smoking in workplaces in India has led to more smoke free homes. BMJ, 346, f2186. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2186
  8. Buonanno P, Ranzani M (2013). Thank you for not smoking: Evidence from the Italian smoking ban. Health Policy, 109, 192-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.10.009
  9. Chaturvedi P (2009). Gutka or areca nut Chewer's syndrome. Ind J Cancer, 46, 170-2. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-509X.49158
  10. Chadda RK, Sengupta SN (2002). Tobacco use by Indian adolescents. Tob Induc Dis, 1, 111-9.
  11. Edelweiss (2012). Gutkha ban. Edelweiss securities limited. Available at http://www.edelresearch.com/rpt/showpdf.aspx?id=21445&reportname=/Consumer_Goods_-_sector_update-Sep-12EDEL.pdf&lgt=656vfdg&type=ynaj9XvqmJoptbYzJzovtA.
  12. Gallus S, Schiaffino A, La Vecchia C, Townsend J, Fernandez E (2006). Price and cigarette consumption in Europe. Tob Control, 15, 114-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2005.012468
  13. Guzman A, Walsh MC, Smith SS, Malecki KC, Nieto FJ (2012). Evaluating effects of statewide smoking regulations on smoking behaviors among participants in the survey of the health of Wisconsin. WMJ, 111, 166-71.
  14. Lunze K, Migliorini L (2013). Tobacco control in the Russian federation - A policy analysis. BMC Public Health, 13, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-64
  15. Martin SA, Celli BR, DiFranza JR, et al (2012). Health effects of the federal bureau of prisons tobacco ban. BMC Pulm Med, 12, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2466-12-64
  16. Mishra GA, Gunjal SS, Pimple SA, et al (2014). Impact of gutkha and pan masala ban in the state of Maharashtra on users and vendors. Ind J Cancer, 51, 129-32. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-509X.138182
  17. Nair S, Schensul JJ, Bilgi S, et al (2012). Local responses to the Maharashtra gutka and pan masala ban: A report from Mumbai. Ind J Cancer, 49, 443-7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-509X.107754
  18. Rekha B, Anjum (2012). Effectiveness of pictorial warnings on tobacco packs : hospital based study findings from Vikarabad. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent, 2, 13-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.103449