Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2021 Aug 4;23(8):1431-1435. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa276.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
自 2019 年以来，美国提出或实施了限制调味电子烟产品供应的政策，以遏制青少年吸电子烟。人们在推特上表示反对，提到了“口味拯救生命”这句话。本研究记录了在 12 个月期间与“口味拯救生命”相关的新出现的主题。
研究期间为 2019 年 5 月 1 日至 2020 年 5 月 1 日。分层抽样程序提供了 2500 条推文进行分析。根据以下一个或多个主题对帖子进行分类：（1）政治投票；（2）机构不信任；（3）个人权利；（4）错误信息；（5）THC 蒸气是真正的问题；（6）戒烟；（7）成人使用；和（8）不是机器人。研究人员检查了全年推文的时间模式。
政治投票（76.5%）和机构不信任（31.3%）是最突出的主题，其次是不是机器人（11.0%）、个人权利（10.4%）、成人使用（8.0%）、戒烟（6.6%）、错误信息（5.9%）和 THC 蒸气是真正的问题（3.5%）。2019 年 9 月，总推文频率增加，并在 2019 年 11 月达到峰值，然后回落到相对较低的水平。政治投票和机构不信任一直是最常见的主题。
带有“口味拯救生命”这句话的推特帖子通常讨论投票反对现任政治人物，并提到对政府代表的不信任。研究结果表明，通过推特实时监测公众对禁止调味剂的反对意见是可能的。这些数据可能对未来设计烟草控制信息活动具有重要价值。
（a）自 2019 年以来，美国提出或实施了限制调味电子烟产品供应的政策，以遏制青少年吸电子烟。（b）本研究通过对 12 个月期间带有“口味拯救生命”这句话的推特帖子进行内容分析，了解公众对限制调味剂的反对意见。（c）推特帖子通常讨论投票反对现任政治人物，并提到对政府代表的不信任。（d）研究结果表明，通过推特实时监测公众对禁止调味剂的反对意见是可能的，有助于更全面地评估不同亚人群对当前和拟议的烟草控制信息政策的反应。
