BACKGROUND: Starting in 2019 policies restricting the availability of flavored e-cigarette products were proposed or implemented in the United States to curb vaping by youth. People took to Twitter to voice their opposition, referencing the phrase "Flavors Save Lives." This study documented the emerging themes pertaining to "Flavors Saves Lives" over a 12-month period. METHODS: The study period was from May 1, 2019, to May 1, 2020. A stratified sampling procedure supplied 2500 tweets for analysis. Posts were classified by one or more of the following themes: (1) Political Referendum; (2) Institutional Distrust; (3) Individual Rights; (4) Misinformation; (5) THC Vaping is the Real Problem; (6) Smoking Cessation; (7) Adult Use; and (8) Not a Bot. The temporal pattern of tweets over the year was examined. RESULTS: Political Referendum (76.5%) and Institutional Distrust (31.3%) were the most prominent themes, followed by Not a Bot (11.0%), Individual Rights (10.4%), Adult Use (8.0%), Smoking Cessation (6.6%), Misinformation (5.9%), and THC Vaping is the Real Problem (3.5%). Total tweet frequencies increased in September 2019 and peaked in November 2019 before returning to relatively low numbers. Political Referendum and Institutional Distrust were consistently the most prevalent themes over time. CONCLUSION: Twitter posts with the phrase "Flavors Save Lives" commonly discussed voting against political incumbents and mentioned distrust of government representatives. Findings demonstrated the possibility of near real-time Twitter monitoring of public opposition to flavor bans. These data may be valuable for designing tobacco control information campaigns in the future. IMPLICATIONS: (a) Starting in 2019 policies restricting the availability of flavored e-cigarette products were proposed or implemented in the United States to curb vaping by youth. (b) This study content analyzed Twitter posts with the phrase "Flavors Save Lives" from a 12-month period to understand opposition to flavor restrictions. (c) Twitter posts commonly discussed voting against political incumbents and mentioned distrust of government representatives. (d) Findings demonstrated the possibility of near real-time Twitter monitoring of public opposition to flavor bans, and contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of different sub-population's responses to current and proposed tobacco control information policies.
BACKGROUND: Starting in 2019 policies restricting the availability of flavored e-cigarette products were proposed or implemented in the United States to curb vaping by youth. People took to Twitter to voice their opposition, referencing the phrase "Flavors Save Lives." This study documented the emerging themes pertaining to "Flavors Saves Lives" over a 12-month period. METHODS: The study period was from May 1, 2019, to May 1, 2020. A stratified sampling procedure supplied 2500 tweets for analysis. Posts were classified by one or more of the following themes: (1) Political Referendum; (2) Institutional Distrust; (3) Individual Rights; (4) Misinformation; (5) THC Vaping is the Real Problem; (6) Smoking Cessation; (7) Adult Use; and (8) Not a Bot. The temporal pattern of tweets over the year was examined. RESULTS: Political Referendum (76.5%) and Institutional Distrust (31.3%) were the most prominent themes, followed by Not a Bot (11.0%), Individual Rights (10.4%), Adult Use (8.0%), Smoking Cessation (6.6%), Misinformation (5.9%), and THC Vaping is the Real Problem (3.5%). Total tweet frequencies increased in September 2019 and peaked in November 2019 before returning to relatively low numbers. Political Referendum and Institutional Distrust were consistently the most prevalent themes over time. CONCLUSION: Twitter posts with the phrase "Flavors Save Lives" commonly discussed voting against political incumbents and mentioned distrust of government representatives. Findings demonstrated the possibility of near real-time Twitter monitoring of public opposition to flavor bans. These data may be valuable for designing tobacco control information campaigns in the future. IMPLICATIONS: (a) Starting in 2019 policies restricting the availability of flavored e-cigarette products were proposed or implemented in the United States to curb vaping by youth. (b) This study content analyzed Twitter posts with the phrase "Flavors Save Lives" from a 12-month period to understand opposition to flavor restrictions. (c) Twitter posts commonly discussed voting against political incumbents and mentioned distrust of government representatives. (d) Findings demonstrated the possibility of near real-time Twitter monitoring of public opposition to flavor bans, and contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of different sub-population's responses to current and proposed tobacco control information policies.
Authors: Cassandra A Stanton; Eva Sharma; Elizabeth L Seaman; Karin A Kasza; Kathryn C Edwards; Michael J Halenar; Kristie A Taylor; Hannah Day; Gabriella Anic; Lynn C Hull; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Jean Limpert; Lisa D Gardner; Hoda T Hammad; Nicolette Borek; Heather L Kimmel; Wilson M Compton; Andrew Hyland Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Adam M Leventhal; Nicholas I Goldenson; Junhan Cho; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Rob S McConnell; Matthew D Stone; Raina D Pang; Janet Audrain-McGovern; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Deesha Patel; Kevin C Davis; Shanna Cox; Brian Bradfield; Brian A King; Paul Shafer; Ralph Caraballo; Rebecca Bunnell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Aleksandr Kalininskiy; Christina T Bach; Nicholas E Nacca; Gary Ginsberg; Jeanna Marraffa; Kristen A Navarette; Matthew D McGraw; Daniel P Croft Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Jenine K Harris; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Bechara Choucair; Raed Mansour; Mackenzie Staub; Kendall Simmons Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Meghan E Morean; Ellyn R Butler; Krysten W Bold; Grace Kong; Deepa R Camenga; Dana A Cavallo; Patricia Simon; Stephanie S O'Malley; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shannon Gravely; Danielle M Smith; Alex C Liber; K Michael Cummings; Katherine A East; David Hammond; Andrew Hyland; Richard J O'Connor; Karin A Kasza; Anne C K Quah; Ruth Loewen; Nadia Martin; Gang Meng; Janine Ouimet; Mary E Thompson; Christian Boudreau; Ann McNeill; David T Sweanor; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 4.591
Authors: Jessica Liu; Caroline Wright; Philippa Williams; Olga Elizarova; Jennifer Dahne; Jiang Bian; Yunpeng Zhao; Andy S L Tan Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2021-12-21