Article Text

Exploring the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
  1. Lindsay Robertson1,2,
  2. Ayush Joshi1,
  3. Tess Legg1,
  4. Georgina Wellock1,
  5. Katerina Ray1,
  6. Karen Evans-Reeves1
  1. 1 Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK
  2. 2 Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago Division of Health Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lindsay Robertson, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK; l.a.robertson{at}bath.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Tobacco companies’ intentions to influence the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) via the Conference of Parties (COP; the official biannual meeting where Parties review the Convention) are well documented. We aimed to analyse Twitter data to gain insights into tobacco industry tactics, arguments and allies.

Methods We retrieved 9089 tweets that included #COP8FCTC between 1 and 9 October 2018. We categorised the tweets’ content and sentiment through manual coding and machine learning. We used an investigative procedure using publicly available information to categorise the most active Twitter users and investigate tobacco industry links. Network analysis was used to visualise interactions and detect communities.

Results Most tweets were about next-generation products (NGPs) or ‘harm reduction’ (54%) and tended to argue in support of NGPs; around one-quarter were critical of tobacco control (24%). The largest proportion of most active tweeters were NGP advocates, and slightly over half of those had either links to the Philip Morris International (PMI) funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) and/or to the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations, a network to whom the FSFW granted US$100 300 in 2018. PMI was the most active transnational tobacco company during COP8.

Conclusions The nature of the activity on Twitter around COP8, including a substantial online presence by PMI executives and NGP advocates with links to organisations funded directly and indirectly by PMI, is highly consistent with PMI’s 2014 corporate affairs strategy, which described engaging tobacco harm reduction advocates to ‘amplify and leverage the debate on harm reduction’ around events such as the COP.

  • electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • harm reduction
  • public policy
  • tobacco industry

Data availability statement

Data may be shared on reasonable request.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

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 may be shared on reasonable request.

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

Footnotes

  • Contributors LR and KE-R conceptualised the study; all authors contributed to the refinement of the study design and methods. LR collected the data. LR and KE-R coded a subset of tweets, and AJ performed machine learning and social network analysis, with assistance from GW. LR, TL, GW, KR and KE-R conducted the investigative procedure. LR drafted the initial manuscript; all authors reviewed and contributed to subsequent drafts.

  • Funding The University of Bath is the Research Partner of the STOP initiative, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies (www.Bloomberg.org). This work is also partly funded by CRUK grant CRUK A25745.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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