E-Cigarette Advocates on Twitter: Content Analysis of Vaping-Related Tweets.
E-Cigarette Advocates on Twitter: Content Analysis of Vaping-Related Tweets.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/17543
复制
发表时间：
2020-10-14
影响因子：
8.5
通讯作者：
Jancey J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McCausland K;Maycock B;Leaver T;Wolf K;Freeman B;Jancey J
由于 Twitter 的大部分内容都是公开的，该平台已成为公共卫生监测的丰富数据源，提供对电子烟等新兴现象的见解。尽管越来越多的文献研究了电子烟相关推文的内容，但人们对生成和传播这些消息的人以及电子烟倡导者在推广这些设备中的作用知之甚少。这项研究旨在确定一段时间内的关键对话趋势和模式，并辨别 Twitter 上围绕电子烟讨论的核心声音、消息框架和情绪。从澳大利亚 Twitter 用户那里收集了随机数据样本，这些用户在 2012 年、2014 年、2016 年或 2018 年期间至少引用了 15 个已识别的电子烟相关关键词中的一个。数据收集由 TrISMA（社交媒体分析跟踪基础设施）促进，并通过内容分析进行分析。分析了澳大利亚用户发布和转发的 4432 条与电子烟相关的推文样本。积极情绪（3754/4432，84.70%）主导了围绕电子烟的讨论，电子烟零售商和制造商（1161/4432，26.20%）、公众（1079/4432，24.35%）和电子烟倡导者（1038/4432，23.42%）是最突出的发帖者。电子烟倡导者使用了多种策略来传达他们的信仰，包括试图将电子烟描述为比传统香烟更安全，暗示联邦政府机构缺乏足够的能力或证据来支持他们支持的电子烟政策，并谴责青少年从电子烟发展到可燃烟草的宣传“门户”说法。推文中最常见的一些主题是广告或推广电子烟产品（2040/4432，46.03％），推广电子烟的使用或使用意图（970/4432，21.89％），以及讨论电子烟作为戒烟辅助剂或烟草替代品的潜力（716/4432，16.16％），以及感知的健康和安全益处以及使用电子烟的后果（681/4432，15.37%）。澳大利亚推特内容并未反映该国目前对电子烟的监管方式。相反，推特上的对话通常鼓励使用电子烟，提倡电子烟作为一种社会可接受的做法，质疑健康风险的科学证据，并围绕电子烟在很大程度上应该不受健康政策限制的想法。讨论的片面性令人担忧，缺乏披露和透明度，尤其是在推特上主导电子烟讨论的电子烟爱好者中，目前尚不清楚这些评论是否得到行业的认可、批准甚至支持。
As 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. This 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. A 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. A 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%). Australian 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.2
作者：
Cortese, Daniel K.;Szczypka, Glen;Vallone, Donna
通讯作者：
Vallone, Donna
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Amin, Samia;Dunn, Adam G.;Laranjo, Liliana
通讯作者：
Laranjo, Liliana
社交聆听： Twitter 上电子烟讨论的内容分析。
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Cole-Lewis H;Pugatch J;Sanders A;Varghese A;Posada S;Yun C;Schwarz M;Augustson E
通讯作者：
Augustson E
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Ayers, John W.;Dredze, Mark;Cohen, Joanna E.
通讯作者：
Cohen, Joanna E.
影响因子：
8.5
作者：
Allem JP;Ferrara E;Uppu SP;Cruz TB;Unger JB
通讯作者：
Unger JB