Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: There is considerable debate among the public health community about the health risks of secondhand exposure to the aerosol from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Despite mounting scientific evidence on the chemical content of e-cigarette aerosol, public perceptions of the relative safety of secondhand e-cigarette aerosol have not been well characterized. METHOD: This study collected tweets, or messages sent using Twitter, about exposure to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol over a 6-week period in 2015. Tweets were coded on sentiment about e-cigarettes (pro-, anti-, or neutral/unknown) and topic (health, social, advertisement, or unknown). RESULTS: The 1519 tweets included 531 pro-e-cigarette tweets, 392 anti-e-cigarette tweets, and 596 neutral tweets. Social tweets far outnumbered health tweets (747 vs. 182, respectively). Social-focused tweets were predominantly pro-e-cigarette, whereas health-focused tweets were predominantly anti-e-cigarette. DISCUSSION: Twitter discussions about secondhand vaping are dominated by pro-e-cigarette social tweets, although there is a presence of anti-e-cigarette social tweets and tweets about negative and positive health effects. Public health and regulatory agencies could use social media and traditional media to disseminate the message that e-cigarette aerosol contains potentially harmful chemicals and could be perceived as offensive. This study identifies the prevalent topics and opinions that could be incorporated into health education messages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Unger et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: