Concurrent Mentions of Vaping and Alcohol on Twitter: Latent Dirichlet Analysis.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lynsie R Ranker, David Assefa Tofu, Manyuan Lu, Jiaxi Wu, Aruni Bhatnagar, Rose Marie Robertson, Derry Wijaya, Traci Hong, Jessica L Fetterman, Ziming Xuan
{"title":"Concurrent Mentions of Vaping and Alcohol on Twitter: Latent Dirichlet Analysis.","authors":"Lynsie R Ranker, David Assefa Tofu, Manyuan Lu, Jiaxi Wu, Aruni Bhatnagar, Rose Marie Robertson, Derry Wijaya, Traci Hong, Jessica L Fetterman, Ziming Xuan","doi":"10.2196/51870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-use of alcohol and e-cigarettes (often called vaping) has been linked with long-term health outcomes, including increased risk for substance use disorder. Co-use may have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Social networking sites may offer insights into current perspectives on polysubstance use.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aims of this study were to investigate concurrent mentions of vaping and alcohol on Twitter (subsequently rebranded X) during a time of changing vaping regulations in the United States and the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tweets including both vape- and alcohol-related terms posted between October 2019 and September 2020 were analyzed using latent Dirichlet allocation modeling. Distinct topics were identified and described.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three topics were identified across 6437 tweets: (1) flavors and flavor ban (n=3334, 51.8% of tweets), (2) co-use discourse (n=1119, 17.4%), and (3) availability and access regulation (n=1984, 30.8%). Co-use discussions often portrayed co-use as positive and prosocial. Tweets focused on regulation often used alcohol regulations for comparison. Some focused on the perceived overregulation of vaping (compared to alcohol), while others supported limiting youth access but not at the expense of adult access (eg, stronger age verification over product bans). Across topics, vaping was typically portrayed as less harmful than alcohol use. The benefits of flavors for adult smoking cessation were also discussed. The distribution of topics across time varied across both pre- and post-regulatory change and pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic declaration periods, suggesting shifts in topic focus salience across time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Co-use discussions on social media during this time of regulatory change and social upheaval typically portrayed both vaping and alcohol use in a positive light. It also included debates surrounding the differences in regulation of the 2 substances-particularly as it related to limiting youth access. Emergent themes from the analysis suggest that alcohol was perceived as more harmful but less regulated and more accessible to underage youth than vaping products. Frequent discussions and comparisons of the 2 substances as it relates to their regulation emphasize the still-evolving vaping policy landscape. Social media content analyses during times of change may help regulators and policy makers to better understand and respond to common concerns and potential misconceptions surrounding drug-related policies and accessibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"26 ","pages":"e51870"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11599884/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/51870","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Co-use of alcohol and e-cigarettes (often called vaping) has been linked with long-term health outcomes, including increased risk for substance use disorder. Co-use may have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Social networking sites may offer insights into current perspectives on polysubstance use.

Objective: The aims of this study were to investigate concurrent mentions of vaping and alcohol on Twitter (subsequently rebranded X) during a time of changing vaping regulations in the United States and the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: Tweets including both vape- and alcohol-related terms posted between October 2019 and September 2020 were analyzed using latent Dirichlet allocation modeling. Distinct topics were identified and described.

Results: Three topics were identified across 6437 tweets: (1) flavors and flavor ban (n=3334, 51.8% of tweets), (2) co-use discourse (n=1119, 17.4%), and (3) availability and access regulation (n=1984, 30.8%). Co-use discussions often portrayed co-use as positive and prosocial. Tweets focused on regulation often used alcohol regulations for comparison. Some focused on the perceived overregulation of vaping (compared to alcohol), while others supported limiting youth access but not at the expense of adult access (eg, stronger age verification over product bans). Across topics, vaping was typically portrayed as less harmful than alcohol use. The benefits of flavors for adult smoking cessation were also discussed. The distribution of topics across time varied across both pre- and post-regulatory change and pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic declaration periods, suggesting shifts in topic focus salience across time.

Conclusions: Co-use discussions on social media during this time of regulatory change and social upheaval typically portrayed both vaping and alcohol use in a positive light. It also included debates surrounding the differences in regulation of the 2 substances-particularly as it related to limiting youth access. Emergent themes from the analysis suggest that alcohol was perceived as more harmful but less regulated and more accessible to underage youth than vaping products. Frequent discussions and comparisons of the 2 substances as it relates to their regulation emphasize the still-evolving vaping policy landscape. Social media content analyses during times of change may help regulators and policy makers to better understand and respond to common concerns and potential misconceptions surrounding drug-related policies and accessibility.

在 Twitter 上同时提及吸烟和酒精:Latent Dirichlet Analysis.
背景:同时使用酒精和电子烟(通常称为吸食)与长期健康后果有关,包括增加药物使用障碍的风险。COVID-19大流行可能加剧了共同使用的情况。社交网站可能有助于人们了解目前对多种物质使用的看法:本研究的目的是调查在美国电子烟法规变化和 COVID-19 大流行出现期间,Twitter(后改名为 X)上同时提及电子烟和酒精的情况:采用潜在 Dirichlet 分配建模法分析了 2019 年 10 月至 2020 年 9 月间发布的推文,其中包括与吸食电子烟和酒精相关的术语。结果:在 6437 条推文中发现了三个主题:在 6437 条推文中确定了三个主题:(1)香精和香精禁令(n=3334,占推文的 51.8%),(2)共同使用讨论(n=1119,占 17.4%),以及(3)可用性和获取监管(n=1984,占 30.8%)。关于共同使用的讨论通常将共同使用描述为积极和亲社会的行为。关注监管的推文通常使用酒精监管进行比较。一些推文侧重于认为对吸食电子烟的监管过度(与酒精相比),而另一些推文则支持限制青少年吸食电子烟,但不以牺牲成人吸食电子烟为代价(例如,加强年龄验证而非产品禁令)。在所有话题中,吸食电子烟通常被描述为比饮酒危害更小。人们还讨论了香精对成人戒烟的益处。不同时间段的话题分布在法规变更前后和COVID-19大流行宣布前后都有所不同,这表明不同时间段的话题重点突出程度有所变化:结论:在监管变化和社会动荡时期,社交媒体上的共同使用讨论通常从正面描述吸烟和饮酒。它还包括围绕这两种物质监管差异的辩论,特别是与限制青少年接触有关的辩论。分析中出现的主题表明,与吸食电子烟产品相比,酒精被认为危害更大,但监管较少,未成年青少年更容易获得。经常讨论和比较这两种物质的监管问题,凸显了仍在不断变化的吸食大麻的政策环境。在变革时期对社交媒体内容进行分析有助于监管者和政策制定者更好地理解和应对与毒品相关的政策和可获取性方面的常见问题和潜在误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信