Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Perceptions of a Pop-Up Aimed at Combating the Spread of E-Cigarette Misinformation on Social Media: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Social media is an important source of e-cigarette-related information for adolescents and young adults. However, misinformation is being shared across platforms, which may encourage e-cigarette use. Objective: This study aims to examine adolescent and young adult perceptions of a novel pop-up on social media that provides links to vaping-related health information from credible sources (eg, CDC). Methods: Between December 2023 and March 2024, participants aged 13-24 years (N=5326) completed a web-based cross-sectional survey. Participants were asked to select from 4 positive (eg, useful to share, helpful to check health-related information) and 4 negative or neutral sentiments (eg, usually ignore such notifications, would not trust it) to reflect their perceptions about a mock pop-up that provided a link to e-cigarette-related information on social media. Results: More participants endorsed positive sentiments than negative or neutral sentiments in relation to the pop-up. Specifically, 1078 (20.8%) endorsed two or more positive sentiments, and 690 (13.3%) endorsed two or more negative or neutral sentiments when searching for "vaping" on social media; similarly 913 (17.6%) participants endorsed two or more positive sentiments and 690 (13.3%) endorsed two or more negative or neutral sentiments when viewing e-cigarette-related posts in their feed (all P<.001). Among those who were searching for e-cigarette-related information, participants aged 13-18 years were more likely to endorse at least two positive sentiments compared to those aged 19-24 years (ie, 646, 22.0% vs 423, 19.2%, respectively), those who had never used e-cigarettes compared with those who had ever used them (ie, 674, 23.6% vs 404, 17.3%, respectively), and those who last used e-cigarettes more than 30 days ago compared with those who had used them in the past 30 days (ie, 187, 19.8% vs 217, 15.6%, respectively). Similarly, among participants who viewed e-cigarette-related posts in their feed, those who had never used e-cigarettes were more likely to endorse two or more positive perceptions compared to those who had ever used e-cigarettes (ie, 563, 19.7% vs 350, 15.0%), and those who had last used e-cigarettes more than 30 days ago (ie, 159, 16.9% vs 191, 13.7%) were more likely to endorse two or more positive perceptions compared to those who had used them in the past 30 days (all Ps<.001). Participants who had never used e-cigarettes were also less likely to trust pop-ups, compared to those who had ever used them, whether while searching for e-cigarette-related information on social media or while seeing e-cigarette-related posts in their feed (approximately, 19%vs 24%). There were no significant differences in the endorsement of negative or neutral sentiments. However, participants aged 13-18 years were more likely to ignore such notifications while viewing e-cigarette-related posts in their social media feed compared to those aged 19-24 years (ie, 850, 28.9% vs 563 25%); further, participants who had never used e-cigarettes were less trusting of e-cigarette-related information while searching for vaping or in their feed. Conclusions: Positive perception of a social media pop-up indicates its potential to prevent e-cigarette-related misinformation. Further development of a pop-up requires strategies to better engage and inform adolescents and young adults, specifically younger individuals, as they may be more likely to disregard pop-ups, and older individuals and those who used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days, as they are potentially more dismissive of such information.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».