ABSTRACT
Background An unproven “nicotine hypothesis” that indicates nicotine’s therapeutic potential for COVID-19 has been proposed in recent literature. This study is about Twitter posts that misinterpret this hypothesis to make baseless claims about benefits of smoking and vaping in the context of COVID-19. We quantify the presence of such misinformation and characterize the tweeters who post such messages.
Methods Twitter premium API was used to download tweets (n = 17,533) that match terms indicating (a) nicotine or vaping themes, (b) a prophylactic or therapeutic effect, and (c) COVID-19 (January-July 2020) as a conjunctive query. A constraint on the length of the span of text containing the terms in the tweets allowed us to focus on those that convey the therapeutic intent. We hand-annotated these filtered tweets and built a classifier that identifies tweets that extrapolate the nicotine hypothesis to smoking/vaping with a positive predictive value of 85%. We analyzed the frequently used terms in author bios, top Web links, and hashtags of such tweets.
Results 21% of our filtered COVID-19 tweets indicate a vaping or smoking-based prevention/treatment narrative. Qualitative analyses show a variety of ways therapeutic claims are being made and tweeter 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. Our results also serve as a cautionary tale in how social media can be leveraged to spread misleading information about tobacco products in the wake of pandemics.
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
Footnotes
Abstract was revised as per journal editors suggestions. Additional content about prior work was included in the introduction section. Some contents that appeared in the results section are moved to the methods section based on editor's suggestions.
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.
