Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Descriptive study evaluates paper cup use and health awareness in rural and urban Türkiye, suggesting need for policies promoting reuse.
This study aimed to determine the frequency of paper cup use among participants in an online snowball sample conducted in Türkiye and to evaluate their awareness and perceptions regarding the associated health risks and environmental impacts. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 1,300 adults. Data were collected online using a structured questionnaire that assessed sociodemographic characteristics, frequency and context of paper cup use, awareness of health risks, and environmental perceptions. Statistical analyses were performed using the Chi-square (χ²) test, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Overall, 72.2% of participants reported using paper cups, primarily for hot beverages. The frequency of use was significantly higher among urban residents (p = 0.044). While 85.3% of participants expressed a preference for reusable alternatives, barriers such as convenience and portability limited behavioral change. Nearly half of the respondents (47.5%) believed that paper cups posed potential health risks, and 51.7% were concerned about substance migration, particularly microplastics (70.4%) and bisphenol A (BPA) (p < 0.001). Two-thirds (65.2%) intended to reduce their usage due to perceived environmental harm, despite misconceptions regarding recyclability (50.1%). Paper cup use was widespread among respondents in this study, particularly in urban settings, reflecting the influence of convenience-driven consumption habits. Although awareness of potential health and environmental risks was evident, behavioral barriers to adopting reusable alternatives persisted. These findings suggest that targeted policies promoting reusable options, environmental education, and public awareness initiatives may help reduce the health and ecological burden associated with disposable cup use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: