Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Tobacco Prevention & Cessation logoLink to Tobacco Prevention & Cessation
. 2019 Sep 12;5:29. doi: 10.18332/tpc/111533

Insights on electronic cigarette products from reviews on the Reddit forum

Jon-Patrick Allem 1,✉, Anuja Majmundar 1, Likhit Dharmapuri 2, Jennifer B Unger 1, Tess Boley Cruz 1
PMCID: PMC7205164  PMID: 32411892

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

E-cigarette devices and their component parts are continuously evolving. Little is known about the product design features that may increase the appeal of e-cigarette use, ultimately affecting continuation of use. Product reviews have been described as useful in helping to forecast the popularity of products, and online reviews have become an important channel of product information. This study analyzed e-cigarette product reviews to attempt to arrive at a greater understanding of the features of e-cigarette products that may make them appealing to current users.

METHODS

Data included 248 product reviews found on a popular e-cigarette-related discussion site of Reddit from 10 April 2017 to 12 November 2018. For this study, we examined the sub-sections relating to the positive features (PFs) and negative features (NFs) of the product, found in each review. Common themes were identified and coded.

RESULTS

There were 2929 comments on PFs (average 12 per product), and 1003 on NFs (average 4 per product). Commonly found in the reviews were the ten themes: build quality, color, tip model, battery quality, price, screw quality, power mode performance, coil performance, temperature control performance, and tank quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest e-cigarette users expect well-made devices and have developed ways to discriminate between products that perform well from those that do not. Findings suggest that the control of price and design features of e-cigarette products (e.g. color, size, voltage, wattage, coils) warrants consideration for future research and policies addressing e-cigarette use.

Keywords: e-cigarette, vaping, pod mod, Reddit, product reviews, appeal

INTRODUCTION

After decades of decline in the use of combustible tobacco products such as cigarettes, new tobacco products such as electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are becoming increasingly popular among adults and youth in the United States and worldwide1-5. Some e-cigarette products might be less harmful than combustible products, but there is still risk to health from the nicotine, the specific flavorings and compounds produced by the aerosolization (vaporization) process6. E-cigarettes may contribute to initiation of cigarettes among adolescents7, and/ or recruit youth and non-smokers to nicotine experimentation and dependence. The effectiveness of e-cigarettes for cigarette smoking cessation is still unknown8,9. However, recent research suggests that e-cigarettes are more effective for smoking cessation than nicotine-replacement therapy, when both products are accompanied by behavioral support10.

Product design features elicit lasting psychological and behavioral responses among consumers11. Currently, e-cigarette products vary in their construction, appearance, composition of e-liquids, and component parts (e.g. cartridge capacity, coil type, heating mechanisms, and battery size)12, which may have implications for product appeal, frequency of use, and associated health effects13. For example, open-system pod mods, offering flexibility of use in terms of nicotine and cannabis vaping, raise concerns about abuse liability14. Devices with variable wattage, also often release high levels of harmful toxicants under higher power conditions15. Replaceable coils in devices produce dense vapor16, which is an appeal factor communicated on social media in the form of ‘cloud chasing’ (blowing large clouds)17. E-cigarette users generally transition between device types, using modifiable devices (rather than first generation or ‘cigalike’ products) more regularly as a function of time and as their familiarity grows with the products18,19. Further information on product design features may prove helpful in understanding the growth in popularity of e-cigarettes and changes in patterns of use over time.

Publicly accessible data from social media platforms (like Twitter and Instagram) have been used in prior research to capture and document the environmental context and appeal of e-cigarette use20-22. Such platforms may also be able to provide insight to the product design features of e-cigarettes that increase their appeal to current and potential users. Social media platforms facilitate rapid data collection, capturing organic conversations about topics of great import (like e-cigarettes) from the public in their own words. In this way, information pulled from social media can be treated like a focus group20-22.

Reddit (reddit.com) is a popular online discussion forum that allows users to create, vote, and comment on posts covering a wide range of topics called sub-reddits. In January 2019, Reddit was estimated to be the 5th most popular website in the United States and 18th most popular website in the world23. Exposure to online reviews of products, a form of electronic word-of-mouth24, is associated with high purchase intentions25 and facilitates decision making26. Product reviews have been described as useful in helping to forecast the popularity of products27. In some instances, sub-reddits contain product reviews as part of their ‘wiki’ (a webpage that allows collaborative editing of its content and structure by its users). Reddit has been used in prior research focused on tobacco use28-30, cannabis use31-32, and other health-related areas33-35. Reddit is a platform where consumers may collaborate to seek information, share questions and experiences of products36. To date, prior research has not examined e-cigarette product reviews on Reddit As such, this study analyzed e-cigarette product reviews on Reddit to attempt to arrive at a greater understanding of the features of e-cigarette products that may make them appealing to current users.

METHODS

Data collection comprised a sample of product reviews found on the popular (>166 thousand subscribers at the time of data collection) e-cigarette-related sub-reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/). A sub-reddit can be considered an online community that discuses a specific topic, which is governed by its own set of rules that are enforced by its active subscribers and moderators. The product reviews were ‘scraped’ (copied using a computer program written in Python)37, from the sub-reddit’s ‘wiki’ (https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/wiki/anthony_vapes_reviews) - a community-maintained set of documents containing, in addition to product reviews, vaping tutorials, responses to frequently asked questions to aid e-cigarette users and guide new subscribers to the sub-reddit.

At the time of data collection (15 November 2018), there were 248 reviews in total, each for a different product. Reviews were dated from 10 April 2017 to 12 November 2018. Each review consisted of several sub-sections, some exclusive to a single product, while others were common among all products. For this study we examined the sub-sections relating to the positive features (PFs) and negative features (NFs) of the product found in each review. There were 2929 comments on PFs (average 12 per product), and 1003 on NFs (average 4 per product).

To systematically identify commonly occurring themes in the PF and NF sections of the reviews, the data (e.g. the entire text from each specific review) were pre-processed by: 1) lower casing all words, 2) removing stop words (e.g. words such as ‘a’ and ‘the’) and punctuations, and 3) lemmatizing words (e.g. breaking down words into their basic form by removing inflections and variants). Two authors read the most commonly occurring set of words and phrases in the reviews. From this initial assessment of the data, ten themes were identified by the authors. Most PF and NF comments were four to five words long, and could be classified into one (or more) of ten themes (Table 1) with simple word or phrase matching. Phrase matching is accomplished by looking for the presence of all words in a document where the order of words does not matter. The words used to identify themes are provided in Table 1. Themes are presented as percentages in reviews. Multiple themes could occur in each PF and NF section of a review. To illustrate findings, we paraphrased sections of reviews for themes.

Table 1.

Ten themes (in bold), and common words used to classify a theme as a positive feature (PF) or negative feature (NF) in the e-cigarette product reviews examined (N=248)

Theme and common words Positive feature (PF) % (n) Negative feature (NF) % (n)
Build quality
build and quality		 77.82 (193) 4.44 (11)
Color
color
colors
bright
blue
green
amber		 74.60 (185) 13.71 (34)
Tip model
tip
pin
standard
510
810
mm
proprietary		 58.87 (146) 13.71 (34)
Battery quality
battery
batteries
life
good
compatibility
decent
size
damage
small
large
big
door		 42.34 (105) 23.79 (59)
Price
price		 40.73 (101) 3.63 (9)
Screw quality
screw and quality		 24.60 (61) 1.61 (4)
Power mode performance
watt and mode
power and mode		 20.97 (52) 5.65 (14)
Coil performance
coil		 9.68 (24) 9.68 (24)
Temperature control performance
‘temp’ and ‘control’, ‘tc’		 4.84 (12) 11.69 (29)
Tank quality
Tank and quality		 4.84 (12) 0
Open in a new tab

Data collection and analyses were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ university.

RESULTS

Build quality

Build quality appeared as a PF in 77.82% (193/248), and as an NF in 4.44% (11/248), of all reviews (Table 1). When discussing build quality as a PF, reviews often mentioned good quality threading, an excellent tank, and the absence of the sound of a button rattle for a sturdy device. While NFs often mentioned were that the build quality was disappointing, cheap, and parts rattled when used.

Color

Color appeared as a PF in 74.60% (185/248), and as an NF in 13.71% (34/248), of all reviews. When discussing color as a PF, reviews often mentioned the variety in color options, brightness of colors, ability to match color across component parts, and the finish of the product. When discussing color as an NF, reviews often mentioned the lack of color options (color was only available in black) and if component parts did not match in color.

Tip model

The tip model (the mouthpiece attached to an e-cigarette device as an alternative to cartridges and cartomizers) appeared as a PF in 58.87% (146/248), and as an NF in 13.71% (34/248), of all reviews. When discussing tip model as a PF, reviews often mentioned that a purchase came with multiple tips, were standard in size, and of good quality. While NFs often mentioned were loose fitting tips, tip shortness, that a purchase came with only one tip, and that the tip was proprietary, or not the standard industry size.

Battery quality

Battery quality appeared as a PF in 42.34% (105/248), and as an NF in 23.79% (59/248), of all reviews. When discussing battery quality as a PF, reviews often mentioned long battery life, ease with which the battery could be accessed or replaced, small size, and compatibility across products. When discussing battery quality as an NF, reviews often mentioned the lack of a battery life indicator or meter, as well as difficulty in opening the battery door.

Screw quality

Screw quality (e.g. responsible for holding parts together, usually the tank to the battery) appeared as a PF in 24.60% (61/248), and as an NF in 1.61% (4/248), of all reviews. The quality of the screws was described as good in PFs, or of poor quality in NFs.

Power mode performance

Power mode performance (e.g. wattage) appeared as a PF in 20.97% (52/248), and as an NF in 5.65% (14/248), of all reviews. Good power or lacking power distinguished PFs and NFs.

Coil performance

Coil performance (e.g. rating, life, and resistance of the heating element) appeared as a PF in 9.68% (24/248), and as an NF in 9.68% (24/248), of all reviews. When discussing coil performance as a PF, reviews often mentioned compatibility across products, good flavor, lifespan, and a purchase coming with multiple clearly labeled coils. When discussing coil performance as an NF, reviews often mentioned poor lifespan and performance, as well as lack of options and appropriate labels.

Temperature control performance

Temperature control performance appeared as a PF in 4.84% (12/248), and as an NF in 11.69% (29/248), of all reviews.

Tank quality

Tank quality (e.g. responsible for holding juice) appeared as a PF in 4.84% (12/248) of all reviews. Similar to screw quality as well as temperature control performance, the tank quality was described as good or bad in PFs or NFs, respectively.

Price

Price was mentioned as a PF in 40.73% (101/248), and as an NF in 3.63% (9/248) of all reviews. Products priced in the range 30–39 US$ were most commonly mentioned as a PF, while products priced >50 US$ were most commonly mentioned as an NF (Table 2).

Table 2.

Frequency of price mentions in all e-cigarette product reviews examined (N=248)

Price (US$) Number of mentions as positive feature (PF) Number of mentions as negative feature (NF)
<10 NA NA
10–19 2 1
20–29 22 NA
30–39 33 NA
40–49 6 NA
≥50 6 2
Open in a new tab

DISCUSSION

The themes identified in this study of e-cigarette product reviews on Reddit provide insight to the device features that may appeal to e-cigarette users. Findings suggest that e-cigarette users expect quality devices, and have developed ways to discriminate between devices that perform well from those that do not. These include good quality threading, an excellent tank, and lack of rattling or loose component parts. Easy access to the battery with a well-functioning battery door, sturdy tips, screws, and component parts that are compatible across different products were also noted as positive features of e-cigarette devices. Members of tobacco-related forums may represent a ‘hobbyist culture’ that actively engages in information exchange, including discussions of equipment and techniques38. Our findings echo this position. Researchers in tobacco control may want to further explore discussion forums, like Reddit, to better understand what drives the appeal of tobacco products, to inform regulation.

Many themes, identified in this study, point to the importance of performance of e-cigarette device components, including the coil, tip, tank, and other parts. Prior research has reported that e-cigarette users prefer advanced devices to the initial lines of e-cigarette or ‘cigalike’ products39. Earlier research has also reported that experienced e-cigarette users prefer devices that are capable of being modified with variable voltage and/or wattage for a specific experience such as the ability to create a thick/milky cloud40. This poses a public health concern as devices with variable wattage often release high levels of harmful toxicants under high power conditions15.

Color was identified as a prominent theme in the present study. Findings suggest that e-cigarette users approve of devices offered in a variety of colors, especially bright colors. Recent work suggests that product appearance, including device color, is a predominant theme among discussions about e-cigarettes on Instagram14. Emphasizing product appeal by highlighting device color has also been a key e-cigarette marketing strategy41. Device appearance, e.g. standardizing color, may be one of many features that could be considered a target in future policies addressing e-cigarette use.

Price was also identified as a prominent theme. The findings suggest that e-cigarette users find it reasonable to pay 30–39 US$ for their devices. Earlier focus groups among adolescents and young adults demonstrated that high costs of e-cigarette devices motivated discontinuation among lifetime e-cigarette users, while low cost was identified as a reason for e-cigarette experimentation42. Future targets for regulation could involve taxation of e-cigarettes to address concerns related to experimentation and abuse liability.

Compatibility across multiple products, and size were common aspects of the battery quality theme. Small battery size was identified as preferable, possibly considered sleeker, pointing to another design feature that could be regulated in the future. Prior research has documented that the overall size and sleek shape of e-cigarette devices (especially JUUL) were discussed features on social media including among youth22,43. Modular and compatible e-cigarette designs may facilitate transition across different types of devices (e.g. closed-system, open-system, mods, pods) and raise implications for abuse liability. Future targets for regulation could involve standardizing the shape of e-cigarette devices (e.g. making them larger and ultimately more awkward to conceal), and limiting their compatibility (e.g. closed-systems).

Limitations

The present study focused on reviews found on Reddit, and findings may not be generalizable to other social media platforms. The reviews analyzed in this study were collected for a 19-month period, and may not be applicable to other time periods. Details about the source of each review were not provided on Reddit. Therefore, these reviews may not reflect all current e-cigarette users’ opinions about each product. However, each sub-reddit is community-maintained, suggesting some degree of community agreement over the content of reviews. This study could not determine the impact of these product reviews on consumer behavior, but product reviews have become an important channel of product information44, and have been described as useful in helping to forecast the popularity of products27.

CONCLUSIONS

Build quality, device component quality (screw, coil, battery, tank), performance, color, price and size were common features discussed in reviews on e-cigarette products. Controlling the design features of e-cigarette products, for example standardizing size, color and wattage, to make them appeal to adult cigarette smokers attempting to quit, but not to youth or non-smokers, warrants consideration for future research and policies addressing e-cigarette use.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.

FUNDING

Research reported in this publication was supported by Grant # U54 CA180905 from the National Cancer Institute and the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or FDA.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

J-P.A. and L.D. conceived the study and analyzed the data. J-P.A. drafted the initial manuscript. T.C., J.U., A.M. and L.D. revised the manuscript for intellectual content. T.C. and J.U. received funding for the study. All the authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Hines JZ, Fiala SC, Hedberg K. Electronic Cigarettes as an Introductory Tobacco Product Among Eighth and 11th Grade Tobacco Users - Oregon, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(23):604–606. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6623a2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hu SS, Neff L, Agaku IT, et al. Tobacco Product Use Among Adults - United States, 2013-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(27):685–691. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6527a1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jamal A, Gentzke A, Hu SS, et al. Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2011-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(23):597–603. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6623a1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jamal A, King BA, Neff LJ, Whitmill J, Babb SD, Graffunder CM. Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults - United States, 2005-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(44):1205–1211. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6544a2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wang TW, Kenemer B, Tynan MA, Singh T, King B. Consumption of Combustible and Smokeless Tobacco - United States, 2000-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(48):1357–1363. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6548a1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Goniewicz ML, Lee L. Electronic cigarettes are a source of thirdhand exposure to nicotine. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(2):256–258. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Soneji S, Barrington-Trimis JL, Wills TA, et al. Association between initial use of e-cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Peds. 2017;171(8):788797. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, et al. Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(10):1926–1936. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kalkhoran S, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(2):116–128. doi: 10.1016/s2213-2600(15)00521-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):629–637. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1808779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bloch PH. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. J Mark. 1995;59(3):16–29. doi: 10.1177/002224299505900302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brandon TH, Goniewicz ML, Hanna NH, et al. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(3):514–525. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-2544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Galstyan E, Galimov A, Sussman S. Commentary: The Emergence of Pod Mods at Vape Shops. Eval Health Prof. 2019;42(1):118–124. doi: 10.1177/0163278718812976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Majmundar A, Kirkpatrick MG, Cruz TB, Unger JB, Allem JP. Characterising KandyPens-related posts to Instagram: implications for nicotine and cannabis use. Tob Control. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Fik M, et al. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors: effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(10):1319–1326. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kaisar MA, Prasad S, Liles T, Cucullo L. A decade of e-cigarettes: limited research & unresolved safety concerns. Toxicology. 2016;365:67–75. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2016.07.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chu KH, Allem JP, Cruz TB, Unger JB. Vaping on Instagram: cloud chasing, hand checks, and product placement. Tob Control. 2016;26(5):575–578. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cooper M, Harrell MB, Perry CL. A Qualitative Approach to Understanding Real-World Electronic Cigarette Use: Implications for Measurement and Regulation. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E07. doi: 10.5888/pcd13.150502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yingst JM, Veldheer S, Hrabovsky S, Nichols TT, Wilson SJ, Foulds J. Factors associated with electronic cigarette users’ device preferences and transition from first generation to advanced generation devices. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(10):1242–1246. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntv052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Allem JP, Ferrara E, Uppu SP, Cruz TB, Unger JB. E-cigarette surveillance with social media data: social bots, emerging topics and trends. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017;3(4):e98. doi: 10.2196/publichealth.8641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ayers JW, Leas EC, Allem JP, et al. Why do people use electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes)? A content analysis of Twitter, 2012-2015. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0170702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Allem JP, Dharmapuri L, Unger JB, Cruz TB. Characterizing JUUL-related posts on Twitter. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;190:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.05.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alexa Reddit.com traffic statistics. Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/reddit.com. Accessed June 22, 2019.
  • 24.Godes D, Mayzlin D. Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Mark Sci. 2004;23(4):545–560. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1040.0071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lee J, Park DH, Han I. The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: An advertising perspective. Internet Res. 2011;21(2):187–206. doi: 10.1108/10662241111123766. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sen S, Lerman D. Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the web. J Interact Mark. 2007;21(4):76–94. doi: 10.1002/dir.20090. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dellarocas C, Zhang X, Awad NF. Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: The case of motion pictures. J Interact Mark. 2007;21(4):23–45. doi: 10.1002/dir.20087. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Brett EI, Stevens EM, Wagener TL, Leavens EL, Morgan TL, Cotton WD, Hébert ET. A content analysis of JUUL discussions on social media: Using Reddit to understand patterns and perceptions of JUUL use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;194:358–362. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sharma R, Wigginton B, Meurk C, Ford P, Gartner CE. Motivations and limitations associated with vaping among people with mental illness: A qualitative analysis of Reddit discussions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(1):7. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14010007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wang L, Zhan Y, Li Q, Zeng DD, Leischow SJ, Okamoto J. An examination of electronic cigarette content on social media: analysis of e-cigarette flavor content on Reddit. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(11):14916–14935. doi: 10.3390/ijerph121114916. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Meacham MC, Paul MJ, Ramo DE. Understanding emerging forms of cannabis use through an online cannabis community: An analysis of relative post volume and subjective highness ratings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;188:364–369. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.03.041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sowles SJ, Krauss MJ, Gebremedhn L, Cavazos-Rehg PA. Supportive social networking on Reddit for individuals with a desire to quit cannabis use. Subst Abus. 2017;38(4):477482. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2017.1354956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cole J, Watkins C, Kleine D. Health advice from internet discussion forums: how bad is dangerous? J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(1):e4. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Park A, Conway M. Harnessing Reddit to Understand the Written-Communication Challenges Experienced by Individuals With Mental Health Disorders: Analysis of Texts From Mental Health Communities. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(4):e121. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Record RA, Silberman WR, Santiago JE, Ham T. I Sought It, I Reddit: Examining Health Information Engagement Behaviors among Reddit Users. J Health Commun. 2018;23(5):470–476. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1465493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhu YQ, Chen HG. Social media and human need satisfaction: Implications for social media marketing. Bus Horiz. 2015;58(3):335–345. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2015.01.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Batrinca B, Treleaven PC. Social media analytics: a survey of techniques, tools and platforms. Ai Soc. 2015;30(1):89116. doi: 10.1007/s00146-014-0549-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chen AT, Zhu SH, Conway M. What online communities can tell us about electronic cigarettes and hookah use: a study using text mining and visualization techniques. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(9):e220. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Etter JF. Characteristics of users and usage of different types of electronic cigarettes: findings from an online survey. Addiction. 2016;111(4):724–733. doi: 10.1111/add.13240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yingst J, Foulds J, Veldheer S, Du P. Device characteristics of long term electronic cigarette users: A follow-up study. Addict Behav. 2019;91:238–243. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.08.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Carr ER. E-cigarettes: facts, perceptions, and marketing messages. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18(1):112–116. doi: 10.1188/14.cjon.112-116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kong G, Morean ME, Cavallo DA, Camenga DR, Krishnan-Sarin S. Reasons for electronic cigarette experimentation and discontinuation among adolescents and young adults. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(7):847–854. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kavuluru R, Han S, Hahn EJ. On the popularity of the USB flash drive-shaped electronic cigarette Juul. Tob Control. 2019;28(1):110–112. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Clemons EK, Gao GG, Hitt LM. When online reviews meet hyperdifferentiation: A study of the craft beer industry. J Manag Inf Syst. 2006;23(2):149–171. doi: 10.1109/hicss.2006.534. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tobacco Prevention & Cessation are provided here courtesy of EUEP European Publishing

RESOURCES