Effects of brief exposure to misinformation about e-cigarette harms on twitter: a randomised controlled experiment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To assess the effect of exposure to misinformation about e-cigarette harms found on Twitter on adult current smokers' intention to quit smoking cigarettes, intention to purchase e-cigarettes and perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes compared with regular cigarettes.Setting
An online randomised controlled experiment conducted in November 2019 among USA and UK current smokers.Participants
2400 adult current smokers aged ≥18 years who were not current e-cigarette users recruited from an online panel. Participants' were randomised in a 1:1:1:1 ratio using a least-fill randomiser function.Interventions
Viewing 4 tweets in random order within one of four conditions: (1) e-cigarettes are just as or more harmful than smoking, (2) e-cigarettes are completely harmless, (3) e-cigarette harms are uncertain, and (4) a control condition of tweets about physical activity.Primary outcomes measures
Self-reported post-test intention to quit smoking cigarettes, intention to purchase e-cigarettes, and perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes compared with smoking.Results
Among US and UK participants, after controlling for baseline measures of the outcome, exposure to tweets that e-cigarettes are as or more harmful than smoking versus control was associated with lower post-test intention to purchase e-cigarettes (β=-0.339, 95% CI -0.487 to -0.191, p<0.001) and increased post-test perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes (β=0.341, 95% CI 0.273 to 0.410, p<0.001). Among US smokers, exposure to tweets that e-cigarettes are completely harmless was associated with higher post-test intention to purchase e-cigarettes (β=0.229, 95% CI 0.002 to 0.456, p=0.048) and lower post-test perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes (β=-0.154, 95% CI -0.258 to -0.050, p=0.004).Conclusions
US and UK adult current smokers may be deterred from considering using e-cigarettes after brief exposure to tweets that e-cigarettes were just as or more harmful than smoking. Conversely, US adult current smokers may be encouraged to use e-cigarettes after exposure to tweets that e-cigarettes are completely harmless. These findings suggest that misinformation about e-cigarette harms may influence some adult smokers' decisions to consider using e-cigarettes.Trial registration number
ISRCTN16082420.
SUBMITTER: Wright C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8413940 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundInformation 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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionsTweets 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 registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 16082420; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16082420.
| S-EPMC8734921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Misinformation can come directly from public figures and organizations (referred to here as "elites"). Here, we develop a tool for measuring Twitter users' exposure to misinformation from elites based on the public figures and organizations they choose to follow. Using a database of professional fact-checks by PolitiFact, we calculate falsity scores for 816 elites based on the veracity of their statements. We then assign users an elite misinformation-exposure score based on the falsity scores of the elites they follow on Twitter. Users' misinformation-exposure scores are negatively correlated with the quality of news they share themselves, and positively correlated with estimated conservative ideology. Additionally, we analyze the co-follower, co-share, and co-retweet networks of 5000 Twitter users and find an ideological asymmetry: estimated ideological extremity is associated with more misinformation exposure for users estimated to be conservative but not for users estimated to be liberal. Finally, we create an open-source R library and an Application Programming Interface (API) making our elite misinformation-exposure estimation tool openly available to the community.
| S-EPMC9681735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiple studies across a variety of scientific disciplines have shown that the number of times that a paper is shared on Twitter (now called X) is correlated with the number of citations that paper receives. However, these studies were not designed to answer whether tweeting about scientific papers causes an increase in citations, or whether they were simply highlighting that some papers have higher relevance, importance or quality and are therefore both tweeted about more and cited more. The authors of this study are leading science communicators on Twitter from several life science disciplines, with substantially higher follower counts than the average scientist, making us uniquely placed to address this question. We conducted a three-year-long controlled experiment, randomly selecting five articles published in the same month and journal, and randomly tweeting one while retaining the others as controls. This process was repeated for 10 articles from each of 11 journals, recording Altmetric scores, number of tweets, and citation counts before and after tweeting. Randomization tests revealed that tweeted articles were downloaded 2.6-3.9 times more often than controls immediately after tweeting, and retained significantly higher Altmetric scores (+81%) and number of tweets (+105%) three years after tweeting. However, while some tweeted papers were cited more than their respective control papers published in the same journal and month, the overall increase in citation counts after three years (+7% for Web of Science and +12% for Google Scholar) was not statistically significant (p > 0.15). Therefore while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientist's papers is likely not among them.
| S-EPMC10954115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social media data are increasingly used by researchers to gain insights on individuals' behaviors and opinions. Platforms like Twitter provide access to individuals' postings, networks of friends and followers, and the content to which they are exposed. This article presents the methods and results of an exploratory study to supplement survey data with respondents' Twitter postings, networks of Twitter friends and followers, and information to which they were exposed about e-cigarettes. Twitter use is important to consider in e-cigarette research and other topics influenced by online information sharing and exposure. Further, Twitter metadata provide direct measures of user's friends and followers as opposed to survey self-reports. We find that Twitter metadata provide similar information to survey questions on Twitter network size without inducing recall error or other measurement issues. Using sentiment coding and machine learning methods, we find Twitter can elucidate on topics difficult to measure via surveys such as online expressed opinions and network composition. We present and discuss models predicting whether respondents' tweet positively about e-cigarettes using survey and Twitter data, finding the combined data to provide broader measures than either source alone.
| S-EPMC7518188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo improve communication of harm in publications of randomised controlled trials via the development of recommendations for visually presenting harm outcomes.DesignConsensus study.Setting15 clinical trials units registered with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, an academic population health department, Roche Products, and The BMJ.ParticipantsExperts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, one data graphics designer, and two clinicians.Main outcomemeasures A methodological review of statistical methods identified visualisations along with those recommended by consensus group members. Consensus on visual recommendations was achieved (at least 60% of the available votes) over a series of three meetings with participants. The participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework and voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until consensus was reached.Results28 visualisations were considered, of which 10 are recommended for researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type (eg, binary, count, time-to-event, or continuous), and the scenario (eg, summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest). A decision tree is presented to assist trialists in deciding which visualisations to use. Examples are provided of each endorsed visualisation, along with an example interpretation, potential limitations, and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation.ConclusionsVisualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of information and enable more informative interpretations. The limitations of each visualisation are discussed and examples of where their use would be inappropriate are given. Although the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation, the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. Trialists should continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles.
| S-EPMC9108928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMindfulness-meditation has a variety of benefits on well-being. However, individuals with primary attentional impairments (e.g. attention deficit disorder) or attentional symptoms secondary to anxiety, depression or addiction, may be less likely to benefit, and require additional mindfulness-augmenting strategies.AimsTo determine whether a single dose of the cognitive enhancer, modafinil, acutely increases subjective and behavioural indices of mindfulness, and augments brief mindfulness training.MethodsA randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 (drug: placebo, modafinil) × 2 (strategy: mindfulness, relaxation control) experiment was conducted. Seventy-nine meditation-naïve participants were assigned to: placebo-relaxation, placebo-mindfulness, modafinil-relaxation or modafinil-mindfulness. Pre-drug, post-drug and post-strategy state mindfulness, affect and autonomic activity, along with post-strategy sustained attention and mind-wandering were assessed within a single lab session. After the session, participants were instructed to practice their assigned behavioural strategy daily for one week, with no further drug administration, after which, follow-up measures were taken.ResultsAs predicted, modafinil acutely increased state mindfulness and improved sustained attention. Differential acute strategy effects were found following mindfulness on autonomic activity but not state mindfulness. There were no strategy or drug effects on mind-wandering. However, exploratory analyses indicated that participants receiving modafinil engaged in more strategy practice across strategy conditions during follow-up.ConclusionsModafinil acutely mimicked the effects of brief mindfulness training on state mindfulness but did not enhance the effects of this training. Limitations of the current study, and recommendations for future research examining modafinil as an adjunct to mindfulness- (or relaxation-) based treatments are discussed.
| S-EPMC8278547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccinations play a critical role in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 and other diseases. Past research has linked misinformation to increased hesitancy and lower vaccination rates. Gaps remain in our knowledge about the main drivers of vaccine misinformation on social media and effective ways to intervene.ObjectiveOur longitudinal study had two primary objectives: (1) to investigate the patterns of prevalence and contagion of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on Twitter in 2021, and (2) to identify the main spreaders of vaccine misinformation. Given our initial results, we further considered the likely drivers of misinformation and its spread, providing insights for potential interventions.MethodsWe collected almost 300 million English-language tweets related to COVID-19 vaccines using a list of over 80 relevant keywords over a period of 12 months. We then extracted and labeled news articles at the source level based on third-party lists of low-credibility and mainstream news sources, and measured the prevalence of different kinds of information. We also considered suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. We focused our analysis of vaccine misinformation spreaders on verified and automated Twitter accounts.ResultsOur findings showed a relatively low prevalence of low-credibility information compared to the entirety of mainstream news. However, the most popular low-credibility sources had reshare volumes comparable to those of many mainstream sources, and had larger volumes than those of authoritative sources such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. Throughout the year, we observed an increasing trend in the prevalence of low-credibility news about vaccines. We also observed a considerable amount of suspicious YouTube videos shared on Twitter. Tweets by a small group of approximately 800 "superspreaders" verified by Twitter accounted for approximately 35% of all reshares of misinformation on an average day, with the top superspreader (@RobertKennedyJr) responsible for over 13% of retweets. Finally, low-credibility news and suspicious YouTube videos were more likely to be shared by automated accounts.ConclusionsThe wide spread of misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines on Twitter during 2021 shows that there was an audience for this type of content. Our findings are also consistent with the hypothesis that superspreaders are driven by financial incentives that allow them to profit from health misinformation. Despite high-profile cases of deplatformed misinformation superspreaders, our results show that in 2021, a few individuals still played an outsized role in the spread of low-credibility vaccine content. As a result, social media moderation efforts would be better served by focusing on reducing the online visibility of repeat spreaders of harmful content, especially during public health crises.
| S-EPMC9970010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The COVID-19 pandemic has been occurring concurrently with an infodemic of misinformation about the virus. Spreading primarily on social media, there has been a significant academic effort to understand the English side of this infodemic. However, much less attention has been paid to the Arabic side. Objective There is an urgent need to examine the scale of Arabic COVID-19 disinformation. This study empirically examines how Arabic speakers use specific hashtags on Twitter to express antivaccine and antipandemic views to uncover trends in their social media usage. By exploring this topic, we aim to fill a gap in the literature that can help understand conspiracies in Arabic around COVID-19. Methods This study used content analysis to understand how 13 popular Arabic hashtags were used in antivaccine communities. We used Twitter Academic API v2 to search for the hashtags from the beginning of August 1, 2006, until October 10, 2021. After downloading a large data set from Twitter, we identified major categories or topics in the sample data set using emergent coding. Emergent coding was chosen because of its ability to inductively identify the themes that repeatedly emerged from the data set. Then, after revising the coding scheme, we coded the rest of the tweets and examined the results. In the second attempt and with a modified codebook, an acceptable intercoder agreement was reached (Krippendorff α≥.774). Results In total, we found 476,048 tweets, mostly posted in 2021. First, the topic of infringing on civil liberties (n=483, 41.1%) covers ways that governments have allegedly infringed on civil liberties during the pandemic and unfair restrictions that have been imposed on unvaccinated individuals. Users here focus on topics concerning their civil liberties and freedoms, claiming that governments violated such rights following the pandemic. Notably, users denounce government efforts to force them to take any of the COVID-19 vaccines for different reasons. This was followed by vaccine-related conspiracies (n=476, 40.5%), including a Deep State dictating pandemic policies, mistrusting vaccine efficacy, and discussing unproven treatments. Although users tweeted about a range of different conspiracy theories, mistrusting the vaccine’s efficacy, false or exaggerated claims about vaccine risks and vaccine-related diseases, and governments and pharmaceutical companies profiting from vaccines and intentionally risking the general public health appeared the most. Finally, calls for action (n=149, 12.6%) encourage individuals to participate in civil demonstrations. These calls range from protesting to encouraging other users to take action about the vaccine mandate. For each of these categories, we also attempted to trace the logic behind the different categories by exploring different types of conspiracy theories for each category. Conclusions Based on our findings, we were able to identify 3 prominent topics that were prevalent amongst Arabic speakers on Twitter. These categories focused on violations of civil liberties by governments, conspiracy theories about the vaccines, and calls for action. Our findings also highlight the need for more research to better understand the impact of COVID-19 disinformation on the Arab world.
| S-EPMC9327499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Online misinformation is believed to have contributed to vaccine hesitancy during the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting concerns about social media's destabilizing role in public life. Previous research identified a link between political conservatism and sharing misinformation; however, it is not clear how partisanship affects how much misinformation people see online. As a result, we do not know whether partisanship drives exposure to misinformation or people selectively share misinformation despite being exposed to factual content. To address this question, we study Twitter discussions about the Covid-19 pandemic, classifying users along the political and factual spectrum based on the information sources they share. In addition, we quantify exposure through retweet interactions. We uncover partisan asymmetries in the exposure to misinformation: conservatives are more likely to see and share misinformation, and while users' connections expose them to ideologically congruent content, the interactions between political and factual dimensions create conditions for the highly polarized users-hardline conservatives and liberals-to amplify misinformation. Overall, however, misinformation receives less attention than factual content and political moderates, the bulk of users in our sample, help filter out misinformation. Identifying the extent of polarization and how political ideology exacerbates misinformation can help public health experts and policy makers improve their messaging.
| S-EPMC9484720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence and types of misinformation on Twitter related to breast cancer prevention and treatment; and compare the differences between the misinformation in English and Malay tweets.MethodsA total of 6221 tweets related to breast cancer posted between 2018 and 2022 were collected. An oncologist and two pharmacists coded the tweets to differentiate between true information and misinformation, and to analyse the misinformation content. Binary logistic regression was conducted to identify determinants of misinformation.ResultsThere were 780 tweets related to breast cancer prevention and treatment, and 456 (58.5%) contain misinformation, with significantly more misinformation in Malay compared to English tweets (OR = 6.18, 95% CI: 3.45-11.07, p < 0.001). Other determinants of misinformation were tweets posted by product sellers and posted before the COVID-19 pandemic. Less misinformation was associated with tweets utilising official/peer-reviewed sources of information compared to tweets without external sources and those that utilised less reliable information sources. The top three most common content of misinformation were food and lifestyle, alternative medicine and supplements, comprising exaggerated claims of anti-cancer properties of traditional and natural-based products.ConclusionMisinformation on breast cancer prevention and treatment is prevalent on social media, with significantly more misinformation in Malay compared to English tweets. Our results highlighted that patients need to be educated on digital health literacy, with emphasis on utilising reliable sources of information and being cautious of any promotional materials that may contain misleading information. More studies need to be conducted in other languages to address the disparity in misinformation.
| S-EPMC10559708 | biostudies-literature