ArticleTobacco control2026
Tobacco control policies discussed on social media: a scoping review.
Article in Tobacco control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scrolling into substance use: Social media use frequency and substance use among U.S. high school students.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2026Article
- FDA authorisation of Zyn nicotine pouches: cross-sectional analysis of public discourse on X.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- A scoping review and thematic analysis of policy implications of novel and emerging nicotine and tobacco products regulation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cooling the Conversation: Discourse About Menthol and Flavored Tobacco Restrictions on TikTok.Substance use & misuse · 2026Article
- Message Valence, Industry Influence, and Stakeholder Narratives in Global Conversations on Tobacco Harm Reduction: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the scope of published literature about tobacco-related policy discussions from social media data and discuss implications for tobacco control policy and future research. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched on 20 November 2023, using search terms for social media, tobacco, and policy. The search was limited from 2005 to 2023. STUDY SELECTION: After removing duplicates, 2 authors reviewed 1118 articles. Those found to be irrelevant based on title (1078) and abstract (18) review were removed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data included study descriptions (eg, policy discussed, social media platform and number of posts), study characteristics (eg, methodology, sentiment analysis (propolicy, antipolicy, neutral policy and unclear policy)), and major and additional findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 22 articles, most examined discussions about USA (n=18) federal regulations (n=17) via human annotation (n=18), using Twitter (X; n=20). Of the 14 papers that discussed sentiment, 4 collected data at different time points; frequency of positive posts typically decreased after policy announcements. Policies discussed in articles included flavour restrictions; USA ban of Puff Bar; Tobacco 21; tobacco taxes; e-cigarette regulation; UK's standardised packaging; product authorisation; regulating e-cigarettes as a medical product; WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control regulatory actions; Australia's import restrictions on vaping products and smoke-free and tobacco-free college campus policies.
conclusionsSocial media data can be leveraged to examine timely discourse regarding tobacco control policies. Identified methods of circumventing proposed tobacco control laws and enforcement challenges should be considered by regulatory agencies to close policy loopholes and inform implementation practices.
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.