ArticleDigital health
Characterizing the tobacco and nicotine information environment for information seekers on YouTube.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This research aims to characterize the English language tobacco and nicotine information environment on YouTube by examining the content to which those who actively seek tobacco and nicotine content are exposed. Methods: We used Google Trends, YouTube's Application Programming Interface (API), and a custom python script to sample the most common videos populated by the most common search terms, and the most common videos populated by YouTube's recommendation feed. After categorizing search terms as "Health Information Seeking" (HIS), "Pro-tobacco/Nicotine" (PtN), or Ambiguous, a content analysis of N = 606 relevant videos identified pro-versus anti-tobacco videos by tobacco manufacturer, broadcast media, health institution, and organic sources. Analyses describe how often each kind of search leads to each kind of source and to pro-tobacco videos in both the primary search results and the recommended videos. Results: In sum 394(65%) videos were pro-tobacco including 83% of PtN and 60% of ambiguous searches. However, just 5 of 118 videos returned by HIS searches or recommendations were pro-tobacco. Tobacco manufacturer videos were primarily found in PtN searches, though two were recommended in ambiguous searches. The most common primary search results for HIS were health institutions comprising 39% of combined primary (45%) and recommended (36%) videos. Conclusion: Although possible, tobacco and nicotine related HIS on YouTube is unlikely to drive exposure to pro-tobacco content and relatively likely to lead to reputable sources such as health institutions. Conversely, ambiguous or non-specific searches (e.g. vape, nic pouch) both lead to a pro-tobacco information environment. Potential individual and platform-level interventions are discussed.
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.