Cureus · 2025
Compliance With the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) 2003 in Deoghar, Jharkhand: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Pilgrimage Town of Eastern India.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Venugopal Vinayagamoorthy, Kumar Ujjwal, Jahnavi G, Nath Santanu, Ayub Arshad, Biswas Bijit, Narasimha Venkata Lakshmi, Alam Benazir, Jha Niwedita, Varshney Saurabh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: India faces a mounting public health burden from tobacco use, with over a million annual deaths. The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) 2003 regulates tobacco control, but compliance in pilgrimage-based semi-urban towns remains under-researched. This study assessed COTPA adherence in public settings of Deoghar, Jharkhand, India.
METHODS: A cross-sectional observational survey was conducted at 50 purposively selected public sites, educational institutions, health facilities, religious places, public transport hubs, and libraries using a structured checklist. Compliance with COTPA sections 4 (smoke-free public places), 5 (advertising ban), 6a (sale to/by minors), 6b (sale near educational institutions), and 7 to 9 (packaging and labeling) was evaluated. Data were summarized as frequencies and percentages; 95% confidence intervals were estimated for non-compliance.
RESULTS: Overall non-compliance was highest for section 4 (26/50, 52.0%) and section 6b (10/24, 41.7%). Smoking occurred frequently in transport hubs, libraries, and religious places. Violations regarding sales to minors were present in 8/50 (16.0%) of sites, and tobacco sales within 100 yards of schools in 10/24 (41.7%) of educational institutions. Section 5 violations (advertisement) were seen in 3/50 (6.0%) of sites. Of the 28 sites that sold smokeless tobacco products, 26/28 (92.8%) had no warning pictures printed on the package, in violation of section 7(1). Sections 7.5 (1/28, 3.6%), 8.1 (0/28, 0.0%), and 9.2 (0/28, 0.0%) showed low or no violations.
CONCLUSION: The enforcement of the COTPA in Deoghar is suboptimal, especially in high-footfall and community settings. Enhanced monitoring, awareness drives, and integration of tobacco control into existing health programs are needed to promote sustained compliance.
METHODS: A cross-sectional observational survey was conducted at 50 purposively selected public sites, educational institutions, health facilities, religious places, public transport hubs, and libraries using a structured checklist. Compliance with COTPA sections 4 (smoke-free public places), 5 (advertising ban), 6a (sale to/by minors), 6b (sale near educational institutions), and 7 to 9 (packaging and labeling) was evaluated. Data were summarized as frequencies and percentages; 95% confidence intervals were estimated for non-compliance.
RESULTS: Overall non-compliance was highest for section 4 (26/50, 52.0%) and section 6b (10/24, 41.7%). Smoking occurred frequently in transport hubs, libraries, and religious places. Violations regarding sales to minors were present in 8/50 (16.0%) of sites, and tobacco sales within 100 yards of schools in 10/24 (41.7%) of educational institutions. Section 5 violations (advertisement) were seen in 3/50 (6.0%) of sites. Of the 28 sites that sold smokeless tobacco products, 26/28 (92.8%) had no warning pictures printed on the package, in violation of section 7(1). Sections 7.5 (1/28, 3.6%), 8.1 (0/28, 0.0%), and 9.2 (0/28, 0.0%) showed low or no violations.
CONCLUSION: The enforcement of the COTPA in Deoghar is suboptimal, especially in high-footfall and community settings. Enhanced monitoring, awareness drives, and integration of tobacco control into existing health programs are needed to promote sustained compliance.