| Title |
Geographic variations in electronic cigarette advertisements on Twitter in the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-016-0906-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hongying Dai, Michael J. Deem, Jianqiang Hao |
| Abstract |
Studies have identified a proliferation of e-cigarette advertisements on Twitter. We investigate whether the prevalence of e-cigarette related advertising is associated with state tobacco regulations after taking socio-economic characteristics into account. We collected e-cigarette related tweets from July 23 to October 14, 2015 (n = 757,167) on Twitter. State regulations and smoking prevalence were provided by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids program. The socio-economic data were provided by the American Community Survey. The number of commercial tweets was 319,041/day with a high potential reach (830,495,700/day). The prevalence of commercial tweets varied significantly by US state. The higher prevalence of e-cigarette advertising was associated with states with better tobacco control impact (r = 0.54, p < 0.0001) and lower youth smoking prevalence (r = -0.39, p = 0.005). In the multivariate analysis, state tobacco control impact is significantly associated with the prevalence of commercial tweets (β = 0.03 ± 0.01, p = 0.02). Policies at both the federal and state levels are needed to regulate the content of commercial tweets and mitigate the negative effect of social media advertisements. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 8 | 12% |
| Psychology | 7 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 26% |
| Unknown | 21 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#1,282
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,905
of 326,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#34
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.