e-Cigarette Cessation: Content Analysis of a Quit Vaping Community on Reddit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: e-Cigarette use, also known as vaping, has increased dramatically over the past few years, especially among younger demographics. However, researchers have found that a large number of e-cigarette users want to quit. Little is known about the unique aspects of vaping cessation, which is critical to informing the development of relevant resources and interventions for e-cigarette users who want to quit. Social media forums such as Reddit provide opportunities to understand the experiences of behavior change such as quitting vaping from the perspective of end users. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine a quit vaping subreddit to understand how e-cigarette users are experiencing and approaching vaping cessation. Specifically, we examine methods used to approach quitting, reasons for quitting, and barriers and facilitators to quitting. METHODS: A total of 1228 posts were collected. The posts were inductively coded to generate categories and subcategories using conventional content analysis. Data were analyzed using the NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: Most users reported a preference for approaching quitting through gradual reduction, particularly through the use of their own devices by tapering the nicotine content. Their reasons for quitting were primarily related to experiencing negative physical consequences associated with vaping, especially in relation to their lungs (eg, tight chest), and tired of feeling stuck to the vape because of nicotine addiction. Top barriers to quitting were related to withdrawal symptoms and intensity of addiction. The top facilitators to quitting were related to using distraction techniques (eg, hobby, gaming, and mindfulness exercises), as well as having a positive mindset. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study reveal unique aspects that encompass the process of quitting vaping. These findings have significant implications for both policy and intervention development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".