ArticleTobacco regulatory science2016
Perceptions of Secondhand E-Cigarette Aerosol Among Twitter Users.
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perceptions and Sentiments About Electronic Cigarettes on Social Media Platforms: Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020Pooled it
- Methods for Coding Tobacco-Related Twitter Data: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Pooled it
- Exploratory untargeted metabolomics analysis reveals differences in metabolite profiles in pregnant people exposed vs. unexposed to E-cigarettes secondhand in the NYU children's health and environment study.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025Article
- An Analysis of Twitter Posts About the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Menthol Ban.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023Article
- Article
- Passive exposure to e-cigarette emissions is associated with worsened mental health.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Examining Twitter Discourse on Electronic Cigarette and Tobacco Consumption During National Cancer Prevention Month in 2018: Topic Modeling and Geospatial Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Characteristics of and User Engagement With Antivaping Posts on Instagram: Observational Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2021Observational
- Statewide Prevalence of Smoke-Free and Vape-Free Homes, by Tobacco Product Use, Minnesota, 2018.Preventing chronic disease · 2020Article
- E-Cigarette Promotion on Twitter in Australia: Content Analysis of Tweets.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020Article
- E-Cigarette Advocates on Twitter: Content Analysis of Vaping-Related Tweets.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020Article
- Factors Associated With Influential Health-Promoting Messages on Social Media: Content Analysis of Sina Weibo.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Dripping and vape tricks: Alternative e-cigarette use behaviors among adolescents.Addictive behaviors · 2020Article
- Tobacco Use Behaviors, Attitudes, and Demographic Characteristics of Tobacco Opinion Leaders and Their Followers: Twitter Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- The Messages Presented in Electronic Cigarette-Related Social Media Promotions and Discussion: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Vaping on Instagram: cloud chasing, hand checks and product placement.Tobacco control · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThere is considerable debate among the public health community about the health risks of secondhand exposure to the aerosol from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Despite mounting scientific evidence on the chemical content of e-cigarette aerosol, public perceptions of the relative safety of secondhand e-cigarette aerosol have not been well characterized.
methodThis study collected tweets, or messages sent using Twitter, about exposure to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol over a 6-week period in 2015. Tweets were coded on sentiment about e-cigarettes (pro-, anti-, or neutral/unknown) and topic (health, social, advertisement, or unknown).
resultsThe 1519 tweets included 531 pro-e-cigarette tweets, 392 anti-e-cigarette tweets, and 596 neutral tweets. Social tweets far outnumbered health tweets (747 vs. 182, respectively). Social-focused tweets were predominantly pro-e-cigarette, whereas health-focused tweets were predominantly anti-e-cigarette. DISCUSSION: Twitter discussions about secondhand vaping are dominated by pro-e-cigarette social tweets, although there is a presence of anti-e-cigarette social tweets and tweets about negative and positive health effects. Public health and regulatory agencies could use social media and traditional media to disseminate the message that e-cigarette aerosol contains potentially harmful chemicals and could be perceived as offensive. This study identifies the prevalent topics and opinions that could be incorporated into health education messages.
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.