ABSTRACT
Objective The low observed prevalence of smokers among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in certain cohorts has led to a hypothesis regarding nicotine’s therapeutic role in COVID-19 prevention and treatment. As new scientific evidence surfaces, premature conclusions about nicotine are rife in social media, especially unwarranted leaps of such associations to vaping and smoking. This study reports on the prevalence of such leaps and the nature of authors who are making them.
Methods We used a Twitter API subscription service to download tweets (n = 17,533) that match terms indicating nicotine or vaping themes, in addition to those that point to a prophylactic or therapeutic effect and COVID-19 (January-July 2020). Using a windowing approach, we focused on tweets that are more likely to convey the therapeutic intent. We hand-annotated these filtered tweets and built a classifier that identifies tweets that extrapolate a nicotine link to vaping/smoking. We analyzed the frequently used terms in author bios, top Web links, and hashtags of such tweets.
Results 21% of our filtered tweets indicate a vaping/smoking-based prevention/treatment narrative. Our classifier was able to spot tweets that make unproven claims about vaping/smoking and COVID-19 with a positive predictive value of 85%. Qualitative analyses show a variety of ways therapeutic claims are being made and user bios reveal pre-existing notions of positive stances toward vaping.
Conclusion The social media landscape is a double-edged sword in tobacco communication. Although it increases information reach, consumers can also be subject to confirmation bias when exposed to inadvertent or deliberate framing of scientific discourse that may border on misinformation. This calls for circumspection and additional planning in countering such narratives as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage our world.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work is primarily supported by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) through NIH grant R21CA218231. Partial support is also provided by the U.S. NCI through grant P30CA177558. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The University of Kentucky IRB has deemed that this effort does not constitute human subjects research and has provided an exemption.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The raw tweet content data cannot be shared publicly as per Twitter's policies. In the interest of privacy, we only report aggregate metrics in the manuscript. We are happy to provide all the tweet IDs collected once the paper goes through peer review.
