Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2015
An observational study of social and emotional support in smoking cessation Twitter accounts: content analysis of tweets.
Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ethical and Methodological Considerations of Twitter Data for Public Health Research: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Methods for Coding Tobacco-Related Twitter Data: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Pooled it
- Smokers' Likelihood to Engage With Information and Misinformation on Twitter About the Relative Harms of e-Cigarette Use: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2021Trial
- Perceptions of User-Generated Content as a Source of Health Messages in Smoking Cessation Mobile Interventions: Focus Group Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of WhatsApp online group discussion for smoking relapse prevention: protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2020Article
- Conversations and Misconceptions About Chemotherapy in Arabic Tweets: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Infodemiology and Infoveillance: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Awareness of Yoga for Supportive Care in Cancer: Implications for Dissemination.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- Exploring online communication about cigarette smoking among Twitter users who self-identify as having schizophrenia.Psychiatry research · 2017Article
- Challenges in Diabetes Care: Can Digital Health Help Address Them?Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2016Article
- Characterization of Temporal Semantic Shifts of Peer-to-Peer Communication in a Health-Related Online Community: Implications for Data-driven Health Promotion.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2016Article
- Social Listening: A Content Analysis of E-Cigarette Discussions on Twitter.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Article
- Assessing Electronic Cigarette-Related Tweets for Sentiment and Content Using Supervised Machine Learning.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSmoking continues to be the number one preventable cause of premature death in the United States. While evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions has increased rapidly, questions remain on how to effectively disseminate these findings. Twitter, the second largest online social network, provides a natural way of disseminating information. Health communicators can use Twitter to inform smokers, provide social support, and attract them to other interventions. A key challenge for health researchers is how to frame their communications to maximize the engagement of smokers.
objectiveOur aim was to examine current Twitter activity for smoking cessation.
methodsActive smoking cessation related Twitter accounts (N=18) were identified. Their 50 most recent tweets were content coded using a schema adapted from the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS), a theory-based, validated coding method. Using negative binomial regression, the association of number of followers and frequency of individual tweet content at baseline was assessed. The difference in followership at 6 months (compared to baseline) to the frequency of tweet content was compared using linear regression. Both analyses were adjusted by account type (organizational or not organizational).
resultsThe 18 accounts had 60,609 followers at baseline and 68,167 at 6 months. A total of 24% of tweets were socioemotional support (mean 11.8, SD 9.8), 14% (mean 7, SD 8.4) were encouraging/engagement, and 62% (mean 31.2, SD 15.2) were informational. At baseline, higher frequency of socioemotional support and encouraging/engaging tweets was significantly associated with higher number of followers (socioemotional: incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.20; encouraging/engaging: IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00-1.12). Conversely, higher frequency of informational tweets was significantly associated with lower number of followers (IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98). At 6 months, for every increase by 1 in socioemotional tweets, the change in followership significantly increased by 43.94 (P=.027); the association was slightly attenuated after adjusting by account type and was not significant (P=.064).
conclusionsSmoking cessation activity does exist on Twitter. Preliminary findings suggest that certain content strategies can be used to encourage followership, and this needs to be further investigated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.