scholarly journals Smokers’ Likelihood to Engage With Information and Misinformation on Twitter About the Relative Harms of e-Cigarette Use: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

10.2196/27183 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e27183
Author(s):  
Jessica Liu ◽  
Caroline Wright ◽  
Philippa Williams ◽  
Olga Elizarova ◽  
Jennifer Dahne ◽  
...  

Background Information and misinformation on the internet about e-cigarette harms may increase smokers’ misperceptions of e-cigarettes. There is limited research on smokers’ engagement with information and misinformation about e-cigarettes on social media. Objective This study assessed smokers’ likelihood to engage with—defined as replying, retweeting, liking, and sharing—tweets that contain information and misinformation and uncertainty about the harms of e-cigarettes. Methods We conducted a web-based randomized controlled trial among 2400 UK and US adult smokers who did not vape in the past 30 days. Participants were randomly assigned to view four tweets in one of four conditions: (1) e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than smoking, (2) e-cigarettes are completely harmless, (3) uncertainty about e-cigarette harms, or (4) control (physical activity). The outcome measure was participants’ likelihood of engaging with tweets, which comprised the sum of whether they would reply, retweet, like, and share each tweet. We fitted Poisson regression models to predict the likelihood of engagement with tweets among 974 Twitter users and 1287 non-Twitter social media users, adjusting for covariates and stratified by UK and US participants. Results Among Twitter users, participants were more likely to engage with tweets in condition 1 (e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than smoking) than in condition 2 (e-cigarettes are completely harmless). Among other social media users, participants were more likely to likely to engage with tweets in condition 1 than in conditions 2 and 3 (e-cigarettes are completely harmless and uncertainty about e-cigarette harms). Conclusions Tweets stating information and misinformation that e-cigarettes were as harmful or more harmful than smoking regular cigarettes may receive higher engagement than tweets indicating e-cigarettes were completely harmless. Trial Registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 16082420; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16082420

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Liu ◽  
Caroline Wright ◽  
Philippa Williams ◽  
Olga Elizarova ◽  
Jennifer Dahne ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Information and misinformation on the internet about e-cigarette harms may increase smokers’ misperceptions of e-cigarettes. There is limited research on smokers’ engagement with information and misinformation about e-cigarettes on social media. OBJECTIVE This study assessed smokers’ likelihood to engage with—defined as replying, retweeting, liking, and sharing—tweets that contain information and misinformation and uncertainty about the harms of e-cigarettes. METHODS We conducted a web-based randomized controlled trial among 2400 UK and US adult smokers who did not vape in the past 30 days. Participants were randomly assigned to view four tweets in one of four conditions: (1) e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than smoking, (2) e-cigarettes are completely harmless, (3) uncertainty about e-cigarette harms, or (4) control (physical activity). The outcome measure was participants’ likelihood of engaging with tweets, which comprised the sum of whether they would reply, retweet, like, and share each tweet. We fitted Poisson regression models to predict the likelihood of engagement with tweets among 974 Twitter users and 1287 non-Twitter social media users, adjusting for covariates and stratified by UK and US participants. RESULTS Among Twitter users, participants were more likely to engage with tweets in condition 1 (e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than smoking) than in condition 2 (e-cigarettes are completely harmless). Among other social media users, participants were more likely to likely to engage with tweets in condition 1 than in conditions 2 and 3 (e-cigarettes are completely harmless and uncertainty about e-cigarette harms). CONCLUSIONS Tweets stating information and misinformation that e-cigarettes were as harmful or more harmful than smoking regular cigarettes may receive higher engagement than tweets indicating e-cigarettes were completely harmless. CLINICALTRIAL International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 16082420; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16082420


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 140 (6) ◽  
pp. e20171117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason M. Glanz ◽  
Nicole M. Wagner ◽  
Komal J. Narwaney ◽  
Courtney R. Kraus ◽  
Jo Ann Shoup ◽  
...  

10.2196/15803 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e15803
Author(s):  
Leanne Hides ◽  
Amanda Baker ◽  
Melissa Norberg ◽  
Jan Copeland ◽  
Catherine Quinn ◽  
...  

Background Young Australians (16-25 years) have the highest rates of past-month cannabis use in the world. Cannabis use increases the risk of alcohol and other drug disorders and depressive disorders, and has a robust dose-response association with psychotic experiences (PEs) and disorders. PEs are subthreshold positive psychotic symptoms, including delusions and hallucinations, which increase the risk of substance use, depressive or anxiety disorders, and psychotic disorders. Access to effective web-based early interventions targeting both cannabis use and PEs could reduce such risk in young people. Objective The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the Keep it Real web-based program compared to an information-only control website among young cannabis users (16-25 years) with PEs. Methods Participants are recruited online, and consenting individuals meeting inclusion criteria (aged 16-25 years, who have used cannabis in the past month and experienced PEs in the past 3 months) are automatically randomized to either the Keep it Real web-based program (n=249) or an information-only control website (n=249). Both websites are self-guided (fully automated). The baseline and follow-up assessments at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months are self-completed online. Primary outcome measures are weekly cannabis use, PEs, and the relative cost-effectiveness for quality-adjusted life years. Secondary outcomes include other substance use and related problems, PE-related distress, cannabis intoxication experiences, severity of cannabis dependence, depression/anxiety symptoms, suicidality, and mental well-being and functioning. Results Recruitment commenced in February 2019, and the results are expected to be submitted for publication in mid-2021. Conclusions This study protocol describes a large randomized controlled trial of a new web-based program for young cannabis users experiencing PEs. If effective, the accessibility and scalability of Keep it Real could help reduce growing public health concerns about the significant social, economic, and health impacts of cannabis use. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001107213; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374800 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/15803


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leanne Hides ◽  
Amanda Baker ◽  
Melissa Norberg ◽  
Jan Copeland ◽  
Catherine Quinn ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Young Australians (16-25 years) have the highest rates of past-month cannabis use in the world. Cannabis use increases the risk of alcohol and other drug disorders and depressive disorders, and has a robust dose-response association with psychotic experiences (PEs) and disorders. PEs are subthreshold positive psychotic symptoms, including delusions and hallucinations, which increase the risk of substance use, depressive or anxiety disorders, and psychotic disorders. Access to effective web-based early interventions targeting both cannabis use and PEs could reduce such risk in young people. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the <i>Keep it Real</i> web-based program compared to an information-only control website among young cannabis users (16-25 years) with PEs. METHODS Participants are recruited online, and consenting individuals meeting inclusion criteria (aged 16-25 years, who have used cannabis in the past month and experienced PEs in the past 3 months) are automatically randomized to either the <i>Keep it Real</i> web-based program (n=249) or an information-only control website (n=249). Both websites are self-guided (fully automated). The baseline and follow-up assessments at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months are self-completed online. Primary outcome measures are weekly cannabis use, PEs, and the relative cost-effectiveness for quality-adjusted life years. Secondary outcomes include other substance use and related problems, PE-related distress, cannabis intoxication experiences, severity of cannabis dependence, depression/anxiety symptoms, suicidality, and mental well-being and functioning. RESULTS Recruitment commenced in February 2019, and the results are expected to be submitted for publication in mid-2021. CONCLUSIONS This study protocol describes a large randomized controlled trial of a new web-based program for young cannabis users experiencing PEs. If effective, the accessibility and scalability of <i>Keep it Real</i> could help reduce growing public health concerns about the significant social, economic, and health impacts of cannabis use. CLINICALTRIAL Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001107213; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374800 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/15803


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan van Lieshout ◽  
Joyca Lacroix ◽  
Aart van Halteren ◽  
Martina Teichert

BACKGROUND Growing numbers of people use medication for chronic conditions; non-adherence is common, leading to poor disease control. A newly developed web-based tool to identify an increased risk for non-adherence with related potential individual barriers might facilitate tailored interventions and improve adherence. OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of the newly developed tool to improve medication adherence. METHODS A cluster randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of this adherence tool in patients initiating cardiovascular or oral blood glucose lowering medication. Participants were included in community pharmacies. They completed an online questionnaire comprising an assessments of their risk for medication non-adherence and subsequently of barriers to adherence. In pharmacies belonging to the intervention group, individual barriers displayed in a graphical profile on a tablet were discussed by pharmacists and patients at high non-adherence risk in face to face meetings and shared with their general practitioners and practice nurses. Tailored interventions were initiated by the healthcare providers. Barriers of control patients were not presented or discussed and these patients received usual care. The primary outcome was the difference in medication adherence at 8 months follow-up between patients with an increased non-adherence risk from intervention and control group, calculated from dispensing data. RESULTS Data from 492 participants in 15 community pharmacies were available for analyses (intervention 253, 7 pharmacies; control 239, 8 pharmacies). The intervention had no effect on medication adherence (-0.01; 95%CI -0.59 – 0.57; P= .96), neither in the post hoc per protocol analysis (0.19; 95%CI -0.50 – 0.89; P=.58). CONCLUSIONS This study showed no effectiveness of a risk stratification and tailored intervention addressing personal barriers for medication adherence. Various potential explanations for lack of effect were identified. These explanations relate for instance to high medication adherence in the control group, study power and fidelity. Process evaluation should elicit possible improvements and inform the redesign of intervention and implementation. CLINICALTRIAL The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR5186. Date: May 18, 2015 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5186)


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin K. Tagai ◽  
Suzanne M. Miller ◽  
Shawna V. Hudson ◽  
Michael A. Diefenbach ◽  
Elizabeth Handorf ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document