ObjectivesTo quantify by meta-analysis the relationship between waterpipe smoking and cancer, including cancer of the head and neck, esophagus, stomach, lung and bladder.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search to identify relevant studies, scored their quality, used fixed and random-effect models to estimate summary relative risks (SRR), evaluated heterogeneity and publication bias.ResultsWe retrieved information from 28 published reports. Considering only highquality studies, waterpipe smoking was associated with increased risk of head and neck cancer (SRR 2.97; 95 % CI 2.26–3.90), esophageal cancer (1.84; 1.42–2.38) and lung cancer (2.22; 1.24–3.97), with no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias. Increased risk was also observed for stomach and bladder cancer but based mainly on poor-quality studies. For colorectum, liver and for all sites combined risk estimates were elevated, but there were insufficient reports to perform a meta-analysis.ConclusionsContrary to the perception of the relative safety of waterpipe smoking, this meta-analysis provides quantitative estimates of its association with cancers of the head and neck, esophagus and lung. The scarcity and limited quality of available reports point out the need for larger carefully designed studies in well-defined populations.

Elevated levels of particulate pollution were found in waterpipe cafes in Doha, Qatar, potentially endangering the health of employees and patrons. To protect the public from the dangers of secondhand tobacco smoke, and to change social norms around tobacco use, smoke-free policies that apply to all forms of combusted tobacco products, including the waterpipe, are needed.

Background: The primary objective worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been controlling disease transmission. However, lockdown measures used to mitigate transmission have affected human behavior and altered lifestyles, with a likely impact on chronic non-communicable diseases. More than a year into the pandemic, substantial peer-reviewed literature has emerged on altered lifestyles following the varying lockdown measures imposed globally to control the virus spread. We explored the impact of lockdown measures on six lifestyle factors, namely diet, physical activity, sleep, stress, social connectedness, and the use of tobacco, alcohol, or other harmful substances. Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed and the World Health Organization’s global literature database on COVID-19 and retrieved 649 relevant articles for the narrative review. A critical interpretative synthesis of the articles was performed. Results: Most of the articles included in the review identified the negative effect of lockdown measures on each of the lifestyle factors in many parts of the world. Encouraging lifestyle trends were also highlighted in a few articles. Such trends can positively influence the outcome of lifestyle-related chronic diseases, such as obesity and diabetes. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic provides an opportunity to better understand the negative impact of strict lockdown measures on lifestyles. At the same time, it helps us identify and initiate positive behavioral changes, which, if consolidated, could improve chronic disease outcomes. It is up to governments, communities, and healthcare/academic entities to derive benefit from lessons learned from the pandemic, with the ultimate objective of better educating and promoting healthy lifestyles among communities.

Background: The primary objective worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic has been controlling disease transmission. However, lockdown measures used to mitigate transmission have affected human behavior and altered lifestyles, with a likely impact on chronic non-communicable diseases. More than a year into the pandemic, substantial peer-reviewed literature has emerged on altered lifestyles following the varying lockdown measures imposed globally to control the virus spread. Objective: To explore the impact of lockdown measures on the six lifestyle factors, namely diet, physical activity, sleep, stress, social connectedness, and the use of tobacco, alcohol, or other harmful substances.Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed and the World Health Organization’s global literature database on COVID-19 and retrieved 649 relevant articles for the narrative review. A critical interpretative synthesis of the articles was performed.Results: Most of the articles included in the review identified the negative effect of lockdown measures on each of the lifestyle factors in many parts of the world. Interestingly, encouraging lifestyle trends were also highlighted in a few articles. Such trends can positively influence the outcome of lifestyle-related chronic diseases, such as obesity and diabetes.Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic provides an opportunity to better understand the negative impact of strict lockdown measures on lifestyles. At the same time, it helps us identify and initiate positive behavioral changes, which, if consolidated, could improve chronic disease outcomes. It is up to governments, communities, and healthcare/academic entities to derive benefit from lessons learned from the pandemic, with the ultimate objective of better educating and promoting healthy lifestyles among communities.

Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) is spreading worldwide. Research has indicated health consequences of WTS similar to cigarettes. Prevalence of WTS is high among young people. In Lebanon, current use rates of 35% have been documented among 13–15 year olds. We evaluated a school-based intervention. Method: We conducted a randomized-controlled-trial of a theory-informed WTS intervention. The intervention consisted of ten sessions based on social cognitive theory and the social influences approach. Thirty-one schools participated: 14 intervention and 17 control; a total of 1279 students completed pre and post assessments. We measured knowledge, attitudes and self-reported behaviors related to WTS using Chi-square tests and regression analyses to compare results between the two study arms. Results: The intervention increased knowledge of intervention group compared to control group participants—about WTS constituents and health consequences; and shifted attitudes of intervention group participants to be even more unfavorable towards WTS. We found no impact of the intervention on WTS behaviors. Discussion: The effectiveness of the intervention on knowledge and attitudes supports previous research. The lack of intervention effect on behavior is not surprising given the timing of the post assessment immediately after the intervention, and the social context that was supportive of waterpipe use.