Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31828791›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of school health2020

JUUL on Twitter: Analyzing Tweets About Use of a New Nicotine Delivery System.

Jaime E Sidani, Jason B Colditz, Erica L Barrett, Kar-Hai Chu, A Everette James, Brian A Primack

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of school health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Jaime E SidaniCenter for Research on Media, Technology, and Health, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213.ORCID 0000-0002-5411-8755
Jason B ColditzCenter for Research on Media, Technology, and Health, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213.
Erica L BarrettCenter for Research on Media, Technology, and Health, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213.
Kar-Hai ChuCenter for Research on Media, Technology, and Health, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213.
A Everette JamesHealth Policy Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, 130 De Soto Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261.
Brian A PrimackUniversity of Arkansas College of Education and Health Professions, 1 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701.
University of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Arkansas at Fayetteville · US

Funding

Leveraging Twitter to monitor nicotine and tobacco-related cancer communicationR01CA225773 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI PRIMACK, BRIAN A. · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA225773
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInitial reports suggest that JUUL, a popular e-cigarette, is being used in schools and other locations in which cigarette smoking is illegal or discouraged. However, there is little scholarly research documenting this. We aimed to make a systematic analysis of JUUL use themes and sentiment on Twitter.

methodsData were collected from Twitter's Filtered Streams Application Programming Interface from April 12, 2018 to May 10, 2018. This yielded 67,934 tweets, from which a random sample of 2% was selected for coding. The final dataset included 1209 tweets. Inter-rater reliability ranged κ = 0.64-0.85.

resultsThe majority (71.5%) of tweets expressed positive sentiment toward JUUL. JUUL use in places where cigarette smoking is illegal or discouraged appeared in 111 tweets (9.2%); approximately one-third of these tweets referring to using the device in school. Nearly 20% of tweets mentioned using the device at home and/or directly in front of responsible adults.

conclusionsThis study confirms anecdotal reports of JUUL use in places where cigarette smoking is illegal or discouraged. Positive sentiment about use of JUUL suggests that the product is being normalized among young people. It may be valuable for educators to discuss the addictive nature of nicotine delivered through JUUL with younger populations.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsSocial MediaAdolescentAttitudeDatabases, FactualDisclosureHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalSmokingStudentsUnited Stateselectronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)JUULnicotinesmoking & tobaccoTwitter

Identifiers

PMID31828791
PMCPMC7034811
OpenAlexW2995395206

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.