Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40093704›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Discourses on smoke-free policies on Dutch Twitter: A social network analysis.

Roel O Lutkenhaus, Abel Meijberg, Famke Jm Mölenberg, Jasper V Been, Martine Pa Bouman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Roel O LutkenhausNew Momentum, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0616-9419
Abel MeijbergCenter for Digital Inclusion, Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9565-1642
Famke Jm MölenbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5305-9730
Jasper V BeenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4907-6466
Martine Pa BoumanCenter for Media and Health, Gouda, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4961-7250

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: In highly mediatized societies, online discourses may contribute to whether novel smoke-free policies become a success. This study analyses Dutch public discourses about smoke-free policies on Twitter, which has been known as X since 2023. Methods: We analyzed messages about smoke-free policies published by Dutch Twitter users from January 2020 until 31 March 2021. We used search queries designed to find tweets that shed light on health, legislative, and emotional aspects of smoke-free policies and used a mixed-method approach that combined social network analysis, text mining, and qualitative inquiry to identify online communities and understand what they are saying. Results: We found 45,636 Twitter messages that mostly responded to news about smoke-free policies and tobacco legislation. We identified two larger news communities and five niche communities of which the Conclusions: Smoke-free policies are frequently discussed by communities that each approach the topic from their own perspective. Anti-establishment sentiment may pose a threat to implementing smoke-free policies, especially if the

Indexed as

discoursesmoke-free policiesSocial network analysistobaccoTwitter

Identifiers

PMID40093704
PMCPMC11909667

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.