Article Text
Abstract
Background Although Singapore has completely banned vaping, it is heavily promoted on social media. This study explored vaping-related social media content that Singaporeans are exposed to, and how it shapes vaping-related perceptions and experiences in the context of Singapore’s strict regulations.
Methods We held 10 focus group discussions with 63 Singaporeans aged 21–40 years, with diversity by sociodemographics, smoking history, vaping history and self-reported exposure to vaping-related social media content. Participants provided screenshots of any vaping-related content they encountered on their social media. Subsequently, in focus groups, they were shown a variety of this content and asked to discuss. We coded transcripts using inductive methods.
Results Participants had encountered vape advertisements from neighbouring countries featuring attractive products, flavours, celebrity endorsements and entertainment shows, which they found highly appealing. Participants encountered posts that did not overtly advertise vaping but depicted people vaping in social settings, thereby normalising vaping despite its illegal status. They perceived government campaigns to deter vaping as biased and agenda driven, calling for a more nuanced message and use of local influencers and personal stories to communicate the rationale of the vaping regulations to the public.
Conclusion Having a law that bans vaping may not be enough; it needs to be complemented with more comprehensive marketing restrictions on social media platforms and effective enforcement of bans on social media promotions from overseas.
- Advertising and Promotion
- Electronic nicotine delivery devices
- Media
- Public policy
- Social marketing
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. Data are provided in online supplemental information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. Data are provided in online supplemental information.
Footnotes
Contributors GPPT: data collection, data analysis, writing. XZT: data analysis. YvdE: study design and conceptualisation, data analysis, writing, guarantor. All authors approved the final draft before submission.
Funding The study was funded by a Tier 1 Academic Research Fund (A-8000238-00-00) from the Singapore Ministry of Education.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.