Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30497815›Full record

ArticleAddictive behaviors2019

Strategies to find audience segments on Twitter for e-cigarette education campaigns.

Kar-Hai Chu, Jon-Patrick Allem, Jennifer B Unger, Tess Boley Cruz, Meleeka Akbarpour, Matthew G Kirkpatrick

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addictive behaviors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Promotion of Disposable Electronic Cigarette Flavors and Topics on Twitter.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  5. Where Do People Vape? Insights from Twitter Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kar-Hai ChuCenter for Research on Media, Technology, and Health, University of Pittsburgh, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States. Electronic address: chuk@pitt.edu.
Jon-Patrick AllemDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 North Soto Street, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States.
Jennifer B UngerDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 North Soto Street, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States.
Tess Boley CruzDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 North Soto Street, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States.
Meleeka AkbarpourDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 North Soto Street, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States.
Matthew G KirkpatrickDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 North Soto Street, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States.
University of Southern California · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

USC Tobacco Center of Regulatory ScienceU54CA180905 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Raina Pang · 2018 to 2026
$39.0M
USC Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS) for Vulnerable PopulationsP50CA180905 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI PENTZ, MARY ANN, SAMET, JONATHAN M · 2013 to 2017
$20.1M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA180905NCI NIH HHS U54 CA180905
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of public health education campaigns about tobacco products requires an understanding of specific audience segments including their views, intentions, use of media, perceived barriers, and benefits of change. For example, identifying and targeting individuals who express ambivalence about e-cigarette use on Twitter may be helpful in devising and focusing public health campaigns to reduce e-cigarette use. This study developed a novel analytic strategy using social network analysis to identify audience segments on Twitter based on positive, negative, and neutral e-cigarette sentiment. Using Twitter data collected from April 2015 to March 2016, we identified different sub-groups of users who retweeted about e-cigarettes, and measured each sub-group's clustering coefficient (CC), which describes how tightly people cluster together. Ten high CC and ten low CC groups were randomly selected; then 100 randomly selected tweets from each group were coded for e-cigarette sentiment (positive, negative, neutral). Results indicate that differences in e-cigarette sentiment are associated with clustering of Twitter network ties. Statistical analyses revealed that high CC groups were more likely to have strong e-cigarette sentiments, suggesting that tightly clustered groups may be "echo chambers" (i.e., like-minded people repeating the same messages). By contrast, low CC groups were more likely to have neutral sentiments, and had greater fluctuation in sentiment over time, suggesting that they may be more flexible in their opinions about e-cigarettes and may be particularly receptive to targeted public health campaigns. Informatics techniques such as determination of clusters using social network analysis can be useful in identifying audience segments for future public health campaigns.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthHealth EducationSocial MediaSocial NetworkingVapingAttitudeCluster AnalysisElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHealth PromotionHumansE-cigaretteSentiment analysisSocial network analysisTobacco regulatory scienceTwitter

Identifiers

PMID30497815
PMCPMC6594686
OpenAlexW2901605813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.