Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveGiven the evolving changes in the disposable e-cigarette market, we explore patterns of sales in the USA by e-liquid volume capacity, nicotine strength and real sales-weighted average prices by both e-cigarette unit and volume of e-liquid.MethodologyWe used NielsenIQ retail scanner data from January 2017 to September 2022 to examine changes over time for average product volume capacity in millilitres, nicotine strength (%) and both sales-weighted average price per disposable unit and per millilitre of e-liquid for each 4-week period.ResultsAmong disposable e-cigarettes sold between January 2017 and September 2022, average volume capacity increased 518% from 1.1 mL to 5.7 mL and average nicotine strength increased 294% from 1.7% to 5%. Sales-weighted average price per disposable unit and millilitres of e-liquid both remained relatively constant until January 2020. From January 2020 through September 2022, average unit prices increased 165.7% from US$8.49 to US$14.07, while the average price of 1 mL of e-liquid decreased 69.2% from US$7.96 to US$2.45.ConclusionsThe current regulatory regime around e-cigarettes has resulted in disposable e-cigarette manufacturers providing consumers with bigger, cheaper disposable e-cigarettes that come in increasingly higher nicotine strengths. Tobacco policy recommendations such as restricting e-liquid capacity and minimum price laws as well as regulations on product characteristics that affect nicotine emissions and delivery such as nicotine strength, nicotine output, device power, and puff duration should be considered in regulating the e-cigarette market.

Despite the prevalence of vaping nicotine, most nicotine cessation research remains focused on smoking cigarettes. However, the lived experience of quitting smoking is different from quitting vaping. As a result, research examining the unique experiences of those quitting vaping can better inform quitting resources and cessation programs specific to e-cigarette use. Examining Reddit forums (ie, subreddits) dedicated to the topics of quitting vaping nicotine can provide insight into the discussion around experiences on quitting vaping. Prior literature examining limited discussions around quitting vaping on Reddit has identified the sharing of barriers and facilitators for quitting, but more research is needed to investigate the content comprehensively across all subreddits. The objective of this study is to examine content across quit vaping subreddits since their inception to better understand quitting vaping within the context of the expanding nicotine market. All posts from January 2015 to October 2021 were scraped from all quit vaping subreddits: r/QuittingJuul, r/QuitVaping, r/quit_vaping, and r/stopvaping (N=7110). Rolling weekly average post volume was calculated. A codebook informed by a latent Dirichlet allocation topic model was developed to characterize themes in a subsample of 695 randomly selected posts. Frequencies and percentages of posts containing each coded theme were assessed along with the number of upvotes and comments. Post volume increased across all subreddits over time, spiking from August - September of 2019 when vaping lung injury emerged. Just over 52% of posts discussed seeking social support and 16.83% discussed providing social support. Posts providing support received the most positive engagements (i.e. upvotes) of all coded categories. Posts also discussed physical and psychological symptoms of withdrawal (30.65% and 18.85%, respectively), strategies for quitting including: quitting cold turkey (38.33%), using alternative nicotine products (17%), and tapering down nicotine content (10.50%). Most posts shared a personal narrative (92.37%) and some discussed quit motivation (28.20%) and relapse (14.99%). This work identifies a desire for peer-to-peer support for quitting vaping, which reinforces existing literature and highlights characteristics of quitting vaping specific to a changing nicotine product environment. Given that posts providing social support were the most upvoted, this suggests that subreddit contributors are seeking support from their peers when discussing quitting vaping. Additionally, this analysis shows the sharing of barriers and facilitators for quitting, supporting findings from prior exploration of quit vaping subreddits. Finally, quitting vaping in an ever-growing nicotine market has led to the evolution of vaping-specific quit methods such as tapering down nicotine content. These findings have direct implications for quit vaping product implementation and development.

BackgroundSocial media discussion tends to follow news about proposed or enacted government policies. Thus, digital discourse surveillance may be an effective and unobtrusive way of understanding industry and public response to policies and regulations, including in the domain of tobacco control. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration restricted sales of flavoured cartridge and disposable vape products. Historically, the tobacco industry used modification of product characteristics, labelling or packaging to work around flavour restrictions. We aimed to characterise strategies used by nicotine product manufacturers and vendors to promote flavoured products on Instagram and to identify policy workaround tactics.MethodsKeyword rules were used to collect flavoured electronic cigarette-related Instagram posts from CrowdTangle, from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021. Posts were coded for commercial content and promotional strategies using a combination of machine learning methods, keyword algorithms and human coding. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to identify major discussion themes. Non-English posts were excluded from the analyses.ResultsKeyword filters captured 113 393 relevant posts from 391 unique accounts, with 46 076 posts referencing flavour promotion (40.6%) and 2124 (2%) posts mentioning alternatives to restricted flavoured products or strategies to evade flavour sales restrictions. Promotional messages featured non-characterising flavour references, ‘off-brand’ product substitutes, promotion of new flavoured product technologies, innovation, do-it-yourself appeals, global promotion, international delivery and encouraged flavoured product stockpiling. In addition, promotion of refillable devices, e-juice, tank systems and ‘box mod’ vaporizers was present.ConclusionSocial media surveillance can enhance our understanding of public health needs and policy compliance, as well as inform strategies to prevent policy evasion. Examining evolving industry tactics to promote flavoured products in response to regulatory changes can help authorities and practitioners assess policy effectiveness and inform future design and implementation approaches.

Exposure to media content can shape public opinions about tobacco. In early September 2019, the outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) became headline news in the United States. In August and September 2019, we conducted two cross-sectional online surveys with current and former smokers assessing attitudes and beliefs about e-cigarettes. Study one (n = 865) was collected before the EVALI outbreak was widely covered and study two (n = 344) was collected after the outbreak had become nation-wide news. We examined differences in perceptions and beliefs between time points. E-cigarette harm perceptions increased between study one (mean = 2.67) and study two (mean = 2.90, p < .05). Ever-users of e-cigarettes largely account for this change. Endorsement of the belief that e-cigarettes were risky and more likely to cause lung damage compared to cigarettes increased between studies (p < .05). Seventy eight percent of participants at study two were aware of the vaping illness story. Being aware of the story was associated with more endorsement of the belief that e-cigarettes were risky to use, but not that using e-cigarettes would make the participant more likely to get damaged lungs. When the stories about the health and safety of tobacco products dominate the public information environment, it presents an opportunity to change beliefs that are frequently targeted by paid health campaigns. Changes in participant's perceptions of e-cigarettes were associated with coverage of this large news story, underscoring the importance of working to ensure that coverage is a scientifically accurate as possible.

ObjectiveTo examine the role of social media in promoting recall and belief of distorted science about nicotine and COVID-19 and whether recall and belief predict tobacco industry beliefs.DesignYoung adults aged 18–34 years (N=1225) were surveyed cross-sectionally via online Qualtrics panel. The survey assessed recall and belief in three claims about nicotine and COVID-19 and three about nicotine in general followed by assessments of industry beliefs and use of social media. Ordinal logistic regression with robust standard errors controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, education, current e-cigarette use and age was used to examine relationships between variables.ResultsTwitter use was associated with higher odds of recall (OR=1.21, 95% CI=1.01 to 1.44) and belief (OR=1.26, 95% CI=1.04 to 1.52) in COVID-19-specific distorted science. YouTube use was associated with higher odds of believing COVID-19-specific distorted science (OR=1.32, 95% CI=1.09 to 1.60). Reddit use was associated with lower odds of believing COVID-19-specific distorted science (OR=0.72, 95% CI=0.59 to 0.88). Recall (OR=1.26, 95% CI=1.07 to 1.47) and belief (OR=1.28, 95% CI=1.09 to 1.50) in distorted science about nicotine in general as well as belief in distorted science specific to COVID-19 (OR=1.61, 95% CI=1.34 to 1.95) were associated with more positive beliefs about the tobacco industry. Belief in distorted science about nicotine in general was also associated with more negative beliefs about the tobacco industry (OR=1.18, 95% CI=1.02 to 1.35).ConclusionsUse of social media platforms may help to both spread and dispel distorted science about nicotine. Addressing distorted science about nicotine is important, as it appears to be associated with more favourable views of the tobacco industry which may erode public support for effective regulation.

BackgroundThe tobacco industry has spent millions of dollars promoting racialised narratives against the US Food and Drug Administration’s recently announced ban on menthol as a characterising cigarette flavour. This research investigates racialised narratives in online discourse following the ban’s announcement.MethodsTweets and users responding to the April 2022 menthol ban announcement were content analysed to examine the influence of tobacco industry affiliates and potentially organic African-American/Black (AA/B) users. Next we investigated the extent to which the menthol ban was discussed on AA/B subreddits and used Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modelling to provide an overview of the menthol ban discussion on Reddit.ResultsOnly 28 (13.9%) tweets by 22 users claimed that the menthol ban would lead to police violence and/or racial discrimination. Of users who tweeted about over-policing, eight (36.4%) had financial connections to the tobacco industry. There were only three tweets receiving a combined seven retweets from potentially organic AA/B users. On Reddit, only two posts with one comment discussed the menthol ban on subreddits dedicated to AA/B issues and culture. Topic modelling showed that the most common topic related to the menthol ban involved the social and political implications of the ban followed by illicit markets and protecting youth.ConclusionTweets claiming a menthol ban will lead to police violence are indicative of industry agenda-setting. The menthol ban was not a prominent topic of discussion in AA/B subreddits although users discussing news and politics expressed concern for how AA/B people would respond to a ban politically.

There is a lot of misinformation about a potential protective role of nicotine against COVID-19 spread on Twitter despite significant evidence to the contrary. We need to examine the role of vape advocates in the dissemination of such information through the lens of the gatewatching framework, which posits that top users can amplify and exert a disproportionate influence over the dissemination of certain content through curating, sharing, or, in the case of Twitter, retweeting it, serving more as a vector for misinformation rather than the source. This research examines the Twitter discourse at the intersection of COVID-19 and tobacco (1) to identify the extent to which the most outspoken contributors to this conversation self-identify as vaping advocates and (2) to understand how and to what extent these vape advocates serve as gatewatchers through disseminating content about a therapeutic role of tobacco, nicotine, or vaping against COVID-19. Tweets about tobacco, nicotine, or vaping and COVID-19 (N=1,420,271) posted during the first 9 months of the pandemic (January-September 2020) were identified from within a larger corpus of tobacco-related tweets using validated keyword filters. The top posters (ie, tweeters and retweeters) were identified and characterized, along with the most shared Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), most used hashtags, and the 1000 most retweeted posts. Finally, we examined the role of both top users and vape advocates in retweeting the most retweeted posts about the therapeutic role of nicotine, tobacco, or vaping against COVID-19. Vape advocates comprised between 49.7% (n=81) of top 163 and 88% (n=22) of top 25 users discussing COVID-19 and tobacco on Twitter. Content about the ability of tobacco, nicotine, or vaping to treat or prevent COVID-19 was disseminated broadly, accounting for 22.5% (n=57) of the most shared URLs and 10% (n=107) of the most retweeted tweets. Finally, among top users, retweets comprised an average of 78.6% of the posts from vape advocates compared to 53.1% from others (z=3.34, P<.001). Vape advocates were also more likely to retweet the top tweeted posts about a therapeutic role of nicotine, with 63% (n=51) of vape advocates retweeting at least 1 post compared to 40.3% (n=29) of other top users (z=2.80, P=.01). Provaping users dominated discussions of tobacco use during the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter and were instrumental in disseminating the most retweeted posts about a potential therapeutic role of tobacco use against the virus. Subsequent research is needed to better understand the extent of this influence and how to mitigate the influence of vape advocates over the broader narrative of tobacco regulation on Twitter.

Screening standing and walking balance is useful for people suspected of having vestibular disorders, a variety of neurologic and musculoskeletal disorders, and for screening astronauts returning after exposure to microgravity. Visitors to a community science education center children and adults, aged 4 to 85, were tested on tandem walking with eyes closed and the modified Romberg test on compliant foam. They were then asked about their experience participating in research, many people for the first time. Subjects performed 10 steps of tandem walking with eyes closed, and three trials of the modified Romberg, or Clinical Test of Sensory Integration and Balance, with eyes closed, standing on compliant memory foam, with a) head still, b) head shaking in yaw, and c) head nodding in pitch. Afterward, staff queried subjects about the experience of participating in science. Age-related changes across the life span occurred in both sets of tests. Therefore, look-up tables by age are provided. Body mass index significantly affected tandem walking. Some sex differences were found. The tests were easy to administer in a community setting. Most participants enjoyed the experience and reported that they learned about the process of scientific research. These data support and extend the evidence for age-related changes in balance performance across the lifespan and for an influence of body mass index on some balance skills. Clinicians and sports educators should be cognizant of these differences when they use these tests for screening. The community science education environment provided a useful laboratory in which to collect valid and reliable data, while simultaneously educating participants about the process of science.

PurposeThis study analyses the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning letters sent to e-cigarette companies from 1 January 2020 to 9 September 2021. Study results can inform regulation of e-cigarettes.MethodologyWarning letters retrieved from FDA’s website were coded for company type (retailer, manufacturer or distributor), location (domestic or international), infractions listed (PMTA (premarket tobacco product application), selling to minors, advertising to youth or packaging violation/mislabelling), product type (e-liquid, device or both), flavour (fruit, candy, tobacco, menthol/mint, concept flavour) and consequence (civil money penalties, product seizure and injunction, product detention and refusal of entry to the USA, no-tobacco-sales order, criminal prosecution).ResultsOf 303 coded letters (126 from 2020 and 177 from 2021), 97.4% were sent to small online retailers. Overall, 94.1% of the companies cited were located within the USA, 75.2% of the infractions were identified by reviewing a company’s website and 70.5% were PMTA violations. In 2020, 55.6% of infractions were PMTA violations; in 2021, nearly all infractions were PMTA violations. The letters cited 880 products; 92.2% of which were e-liquid products, with 32.4% fruit and 31.1% concept flavours.DiscussionWarning letters targeted small online retailers rather than large e-cigarette brands or products most used by youth: pod mods and disposables. The focus of these enforcement actions comprises a small share of the market and the impact on use was likely minimal. With PMTA decisions pending for the largest brands of e-cigarettes, the FDA should use its enforcement powers to target manufacturers, distributors and sellers of the tobacco products that have the greatest impact on youth and products that provide no public health benefit.