Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Understanding e-cigarette content and promotion on YouTube through machine learning
  1. Grace Kong1,
  2. Alex Sebastian Schott1,
  3. Juhan Lee1,
  4. Hassan Dashtian2,
  5. Dhiraj Murthy2
  1. 1 Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  2. 2 The School of Journalism, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Grace Kong, Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06519, USA; grace.kong{at}yale.edu

Abstract

Introduction YouTube is a popular social media used by youth and has electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) content. We used machine learning to identify the content of e-cigarette videos, featured e-cigarette products, video uploaders, and marketing and sales of e-cigarette products.

Methods We identified e-cigarette content using 18 search terms (eg, e-cig) using fictitious youth viewer profiles and predicted four models using the metadata as the input to supervised machine learning: (1) video themes, (2) featured e-cigarette products, (3) channel type (ie, video uploaders) and (4) discount/sales. We assessed the association between engagement data and the four models.

Results 3830 English videos were included in the supervised machine learning. The most common video theme was ‘product review’ (48.9%), followed by ‘instruction’ (eg, ‘how to’ use/modify e-cigarettes; 17.3%); diverse e-cigarette products were featured; ‘vape enthusiasts’ most frequently posted e-cigarette videos (54.0%), followed by retailers (20.3%); 43.2% of videos had discount/sales of e-cigarettes; and the most common sales strategy was external links for purchasing (34.1%). ‘Vape trick’ was the least common theme but had the highest engagement (eg, >2 million views). ‘Cannabis’ (53.9%) and ‘instruction’ (49.9%) themes were more likely to have external links for purchasing (p<0.001). The four models achieved an F1 score (a measure of model accuracy) of up to 0.87.

Discussion Our findings indicate that on YouTube videos accessible to youth, a variety of e-cigarette products are featured through diverse videos themes, with discount/sales. The findings highlight the need to regulate the promotion of e-cigarettes on social media platforms.

  • Advertising and Promotion
  • Electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • Media
  • Social marketing
  • Surveillance and monitoring

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data used from this study are publicly available data from YouTube. However, we can provide data upon reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data used from this study are publicly available data from YouTube. However, we can provide data upon reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors GK: is the guarantor of the study. As an guarantor, GK accepts full responsibility for the finished work and the conduct of the study, has access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. She conceptualised and designed the study, obtained funding for the study, interpreted the results, wrote the first draft. DM: designed the study, acquired the data, analysed the data, interpreted the results, wrote sections. JL: wrote sections, interpreted the results. ASS: analysed the data, interpreted the results, wrote sections. HD: assisted in data analysis.

  • Funding The research reported in this publication was supported by Grant Number R01DA049878 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP).

  • Disclaimer The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the FDA.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.