Mary V Carroll1, Ariel Shensa, Brian A Primack. 1. Center for Research on Health Care, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: YouTube is now the second most visited site on the internet. The authors aimed to compare characteristics of and messages conveyed by cigarette- and hookah-related videos on YouTube. METHODS: Systematic search procedures yielded 66 cigarette-related and 61 hookah-related videos. After three trained qualitative researchers used an iterative approach to develop and refine definitions for the coding of variables, two of them independently coded each video for content including positive and negative associations with smoking and major content type. RESULTS: Median view counts were 606,884 for cigarettes-related videos and 102,307 for hookah-related videos (p<0.001). However, the number of comments per 1000 views was significantly lower for cigarette-related videos than for hookah-related videos (1.6 vs 2.5, p=0.003). There was no significant difference in the number of 'like' designations per 100 reactions (91 vs 87, p=0.39). Cigarette-related videos were less likely than hookah-related videos to portray tobacco use in a positive light (24% vs 92%, p<0.001). In addition, cigarette-related videos were more likely to be of high production quality (42% vs 5%, p<0.001), to mention short-term consequences (50% vs 18%, p<0.001) and long-term consequences (44% vs 2%, p<0.001) of tobacco use, to contain explicit antismoking messages (39% vs 0%, p<0.001) and to provide specific information on how to quit tobacco use (21% vs 0%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although internet user-generated videos related to cigarette smoking often acknowledge harmful consequences and provide explicit antismoking messages, hookah-related videos do not. It may be valuable for public health programmes to correct common misconceptions regarding hookah use.
OBJECTIVE: YouTube is now the second most visited site on the internet. The authors aimed to compare characteristics of and messages conveyed by cigarette- and hookah-related videos on YouTube. METHODS: Systematic search procedures yielded 66 cigarette-related and 61 hookah-related videos. After three trained qualitative researchers used an iterative approach to develop and refine definitions for the coding of variables, two of them independently coded each video for content including positive and negative associations with smoking and major content type. RESULTS: Median view counts were 606,884 for cigarettes-related videos and 102,307 for hookah-related videos (p<0.001). However, the number of comments per 1000 views was significantly lower for cigarette-related videos than for hookah-related videos (1.6 vs 2.5, p=0.003). There was no significant difference in the number of 'like' designations per 100 reactions (91 vs 87, p=0.39). Cigarette-related videos were less likely than hookah-related videos to portray tobacco use in a positive light (24% vs 92%, p<0.001). In addition, cigarette-related videos were more likely to be of high production quality (42% vs 5%, p<0.001), to mention short-term consequences (50% vs 18%, p<0.001) and long-term consequences (44% vs 2%, p<0.001) of tobacco use, to contain explicit antismoking messages (39% vs 0%, p<0.001) and to provide specific information on how to quit tobacco use (21% vs 0%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although internet user-generated videos related to cigarette smoking often acknowledge harmful consequences and provide explicit antismoking messages, hookah-related videos do not. It may be valuable for public health programmes to correct common misconceptions regarding hookah use.
Entities:
Keywords:
Water pipe; advertising and promotion; cigarette; hookah; internet; media; media literacy; music; non-cigarette tobacco products; prevention; public policy; user-generated content
Authors: Madeline A Dalton; James D Sargent; Michael L Beach; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Jennifer J Gibson; M Bridget Ahrens; Jennifer J Tickle; Todd F Heatherton Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-07-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: James D Sargent; Michael L Beach; Anna M Adachi-Mejia; Jennifer J Gibson; Linda T Titus-Ernstoff; Charles P Carusi; Susan D Swain; Todd F Heatherton; Madeline A Dalton Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jaime E Sidani; Ariel Shensa; Maharsi R Naidu; Jonathan G Yabes; Brian A Primack Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Amanda L Johnson; Jessica M Rath; Valerie Williams; Donna M Vallone; David B Abrams; Donald Hedeker; Robin J Mermelstein Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Brian A Primack; Jennifer Mah; Ariel Shensa; Daniel Rosen; Michael A Yonas; Michael J Fine Journal: J Ethn Subst Abuse Date: 2014 Impact factor: 1.507
Authors: Jaime E Sidani; Ariel Shensa; Tracey E Barnett; Robert L Cook; Brian A Primack Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Brian A Primack; Peter Freedman-Doan; Jaime E Sidani; Daniel Rosen; Ariel Shensa; A Everette James; John Wallace Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 5.043