Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33052130›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2020

E-Cigarette Advocates on Twitter: Content Analysis of Vaping-Related Tweets.

Kahlia McCausland, Bruce Maycock, Tama Leaver, Katharina Wolf, Becky Freeman, Jonine Jancey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Spanish-Language Tobacco-Related Posts on Twitter: Content Analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Characterizing Anti-Vaping Posts for Effective Communication on Instagram Using Multimodal Deep Learning.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Promotion of E-Cigarettes on TikTok and Regulatory Considerations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Comparative Analysis of E-Cigarette and Cigarette Posts on Instagram.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  19. A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of People Who Resumed Smoking Following Exclusive Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Article
  20. An Analysis of Arguments Advanced via Twitter in an Advocacy Campaign to Promote Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    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.

Kahlia McCauslandCollaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7071-6491
Bruce MaycockCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7988-9740
Tama LeaverSchool of Media, Creative Arts and Social Inquiry, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4065-4725
Katharina WolfSchool of Marketing, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6740-4478
Becky FreemanSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2082-9612
Jonine JanceyCollaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7894-2896

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the majority of Twitter content is publicly available, the platform has become a rich data source for public health surveillance, providing insights into emergent phenomena, such as vaping. Although there is a growing body of literature that has examined the content of vaping-related tweets, less is known about the people who generate and disseminate these messages and the role of e-cigarette advocates in the promotion of these devices.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify key conversation trends and patterns over time, and discern the core voices, message frames, and sentiment surrounding e-cigarette discussions on Twitter.

methodsA random sample of data were collected from Australian Twitter users who referenced at least one of 15 identified e-cigarette related keywords during 2012, 2014, 2016, or 2018. Data collection was facilitated by TrISMA (Tracking Infrastructure for Social Media Analysis) and analyzed by content analysis.

resultsA sample of 4432 vaping-related tweets posted and retweeted by Australian users was analyzed. Positive sentiment (3754/4432, 84.70%) dominated the discourse surrounding e-cigarettes, and vape retailers and manufacturers (1161/4432, 26.20%), the general public (1079/4432, 24.35%), and e-cigarette advocates (1038/4432, 23.42%) were the most prominent posters. Several tactics were used by e-cigarette advocates to communicate their beliefs, including attempts to frame e-cigarettes as safer than traditional cigarettes, imply that federal government agencies lack sufficient competence or evidence for the policies they endorse about vaping, and denounce as propaganda "gateway" claims of youth progressing from e-cigarettes to combustible tobacco. Some of the most common themes presented in tweets were advertising or promoting e-cigarette products (2040/4432, 46.03%), promoting e-cigarette use or intent to use (970/4432, 21.89%), and discussing the potential of e-cigarettes to be used as a smoking cessation aid or tobacco alternative (716/4432, 16.16%), as well as the perceived health and safety benefits and consequences of e-cigarette use (681/4432, 15.37%).

conclusionsAustralian Twitter content does not reflect the country's current regulatory approach to e-cigarettes. Rather, the conversation on Twitter generally encourages e-cigarette use, promotes vaping as a socially acceptable practice, discredits scientific evidence of health risks, and rallies around the idea that e-cigarettes should largely be outside the bounds of health policy. The one-sided nature of the discussion is concerning, as is the lack of disclosure and transparency, especially among vaping enthusiasts who dominate the majority of e-cigarette discussions on Twitter, where it is unclear if comments are endorsed, sanctioned, or even supported by the industry.

Indexed as

AustraliaConsumer AdvocacyElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHumansSocial MediaVapingcontent analysise-cigaretteelectronic cigaretteselectronic nicotine delivery systemsinfodemiologyinfoveillancepublic healthsocial mediaTwittervaping

Identifiers

PMID33052130
PMCPMC7593865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.