Advertisement

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media and its influence on positive perceptions of vaping and vaping behaviours in Anglophone countries: A scoping review

Abstract

There is ongoing scientific and policy debate about the role e-cigarettes play in tobacco control, with concerns centring around unknown long-term effects, and the potential industry co-option of harm reduction efforts, including marketing to youths. There is substantial evidence of the influence of conventional cigarette promotion on smoking behaviours in Anglophone countries, and the popularity of social networking sites, as well as the lack of marketing regulations on the commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes online, suggest an urgent need to explore this topic further. This scoping review aims to map the existing evidence related to the influence of e-cigarette commercial promotion on social media on positive perceptions of vaping and vaping behaviours in core Anglophone countries. Searches were conducted in CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Embase, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Science Citation Index, on the 21st of July 2022. From 1,385 studies, 11 articles were included in the final review, using diverse study designs, including focus groups, content analysis, cross-sectional studies, and experiments. The studies were primarily based in the U.S. and evidenced the association between the commercial promotion of e-cigarettes on social media with positive perceptions of vaping and vaping behaviours, particularly among young people, addressing diverse themes including celebrities’ sponsorship, e-liquid appeal (including flavours and nicotine levels), users’ engagement with ads, and other marketing strategies. Further, social networking sites commercially promoting e-cigarettes might increase positive attitudes towards vaping and vaping behaviours, particularly among youths. Future research should be conducted in broader settings, incorporate larger and diverse sample sizes, ensure research transparency, cover multiple social networking sites, emphasize ecological validity, and foment longitudinal studies.

Citation: Chacon L, Mitchell G, Golder S (2024) The commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media and its influence on positive perceptions of vaping and vaping behaviours in Anglophone countries: A scoping review. PLOS Glob Public Health 4(1): e0002736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002736

Editor: Veena Sriram, The University of British Columbia, CANADA

Received: June 6, 2023; Accepted: November 30, 2023; Published: January 17, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Chacon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The included studies are all published. The supplementary material includes full details of our search strategies. Our tables include all extracted information. All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Differently from conventional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (or e-cigarettes) heat a liquid substance to create an inhalable vapour, instead of burning tobacco [1]. This liquid, commonly referred to as e-liquid, contains various flavours, additives, and chemicals that can be harmful to human health [2]. E-cigarettes can either contain nicotine or be nicotine-free [2] and generally contain fewer harmful substances compared to conventional cigarettes [3]. Therefore, e-cigarettes are commonly considered a healthier alternative to traditional cigarette smoking [4].

The role of e-cigarettes in tobacco control is subject to significant policy debate. While some evidence suggests that e-cigarette contributes to smoking cessation [5], there is also concern that their use may lead to increased smoking behaviours among young people [6–8], potentially serving as a gateway to smoking [9]. Hence, the paradox surrounding e-cigarette usage is related to the harm reduction benefit it promotes for former smokers against the health hazards they present, including for non-smokers [10, 11].

The indiscriminate use of electronic cigarettes poses many health risks to humans, especially to the respiratory system [4], as observed during the E-cigarette or Vaping Use-associated Lung Injury (EVALI) epidemic outbreak in 2019 in the U.S. [12–14]. In core Anglophone nations such as the U.S., the use of e-cigarettes (also known as ‘vaping’) is a widespread practice among young individuals [15–17], who are often the target of the vape industry’s appealing marketing strategies [18].

As observed previously in the tobacco industry marketing strategies, cigarette promotion in traditional communication media channels such as television, radio, and movies played a significant role in smoking behaviours [19]. Similarly, exposure to electronic cigarettes on social networking sites (also known as social media) has been associated with vaping behaviours across diverse types of smoking statuses individuals [20–23]. Social media is widely recognized as internet-based channels that enable individuals and companies to interact with a broad spectrum of audiences and create and share online content [20, 24]. In the context of e-cigarettes, social media can be accessed by users to obtain information about the product. Through the widespread dissemination of information across these media platforms, including targeted company content to specific demographics, the likelihood of users adopting e-cigarettes increases [20].

The validated correlation of the promotion of conventional cigarettes in traditional media on smoking behaviours [19] contributed to long-term restrictive marketing policies [25], resulting in a decrease in smokers’ awareness of pro-smoking cues [26], and a reduction of conventional cigarette use [27]. Due to the rising concern about vaping [28], recent sessions at the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) considered incorporating regulatory measures restricting e-cigarettes [28], including its manufacture, importation, distribution, presentation, sale and use [29]. Despite the WHO’s efforts to regulate Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Electronic non-nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS/ENNDS) [29], current actions appear to be insufficient in effectively restricting their exposure on social networking sites [30]. Hence, enforcement of regulations on e-cigarette advertising, promotion and sponsorship might be lacking.

Regulatory frameworks for e-cigarette advertising on social media platforms may also vary between countries, as they fall under distinct jurisdiction policies [31]. In Australia, for example, e-cigarette marketing is completely prohibited [32], whereas in the U.S., the FDA has introduced various restrictions on e-cigarette marketing on social media [30]. Several self-regulatory restrictions by social media platforms that prohibit the promotion of tobacco products also fail to address novel forms of promotion, including sponsored content and controlling underaged access [30]. Industry influence over science and policy is an ongoing concern, particularly, due to the tobacco industry’s stake in, and promulgators of various e-cigarette brands [33, 34]. This influence is evidenced in studies with industry-related conflicts of interest frequently promoting vaping as a harmless activity [35].

More comprehensive policies are therefore necessary to restrict e-cigarette advertising on social media, and it is imperative to continue researching this phenomenon in the context of e-cigarette promotion in the 21st century. Despite the existing evidence regarding the impact of e-cigarette promotion on social media platforms on vaping behaviours [20–23], further rigorous research methods are necessary to establish the direct association of this exposure with vaping practices.

The primary objective of this scoping review was to synthesize the available evidence and identify key knowledge gaps, to support future investigations. Specifically, this review focused on exploring the influence of commercial e-cigarette promotion on social networking sites on the development of positive perceptions of vaping and various vaping behaviours (including experimentation, initiation, and escalation) across key Anglophone countries.

Materials and methods

The scoping review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidance [36] and guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework underpinned by five methodological steps, developed with an iterative and reflexive approach [37]. In addition to the Arksey and Malley framework for scoping reviews, this study was also guided by recommendations provided by Levac and collaborators, to enhance a team-based approach to scoping review methodologies [38]. The methodology of the research was based on a previously published study protocol [39].

Objective

This scoping review (1) explores the existing evidence related to the association between the commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media and its influence on vaping initiation and positive perception of vaping in Anglophone countries, through a diverse range of study designs (2) maps the existing literature to determine whether systematic reviews related to the research topic are available or feasible to be developed, or whether primary research is first required (3) describes, summarizes, and disseminates in detail the key concepts and findings related to the research topic of interest, contributing to data accessibility (4) establishes what prospective research must cover, by identifying the main gaps in the literature related to the research topic, and contributing to a long-term, improved understanding of the theme.

Identifying the research question

This review aimed to address the following research questions: 1) What evidence is there that the commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media influences positive perceptions about vaping and vaping behaviours among individuals from Anglophone countries? and 2) What further research is needed to evidence the association between the commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media and vaping initiation and positive perceptions about vaping among individuals from Anglophone countries?

Identifying relevant studies

Seven databases were searched in the fields of health sciences, public health, social sciences, and psychology. The databases were selected due to their relevance to the research question. The databases were the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Epistemonikos, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index (SCI). By following Cochrane guidelines [40], an additional search was conducted within previous reviews on equivalent topics and reference lists of the included studies were checked. Diverse combinations of text words and indexing terms and their respective synonymous, variations, and abbreviations were used in the search to identify relevant studies. The terms were chosen based on the PECO question formulation framework (Table 1) and from previous search strategies applied in topic-related systematic reviews [41–43]. Databases were searched until the 21st of July 2022. No language or date restrictions were applied.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. PECO framework to structure the research question.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002736.t001

Selecting the studies

Given the current state of concern with e-cigarette use across the globe [2], it’s worth noting that this scoping review specifically focuses on core Anglophone countries where English serves as the primary spoken language. This decision is rooted in practical considerations, including the language accessibility and data availability of studies in English. Moreover, this selection criterion is based on the substantial influence employed by Anglophone countries—such as the U.S.—over global regulatory discussions concerning e-cigarettes, increased funding for tobacco research, policy advocacy, and international cooperation.

Although it is not usual practice to contain commercial affiliations, user-generated content can carry undertones of commercial ties, which are not always declared [44]. However, in the absence of disclosed paid relationships, user-generated content may be interpreted as organic posts, and consequently, exempt from advertising restrictions [44]. While acknowledging the impact of excluding user-generated content, this research limits its scope to posts disclosing commercial ties.

Thematic and content analysis of social media significantly contributes to understanding how e-cigarettes are portrayed online [45]. However, merely including a descriptive analysis of e-cigarette commercial content on social media may fail to address its impact on users’ favourable perceptions and vaping behaviours. Considering the primary goal of this research, a deliberate emphasis was placed on studies assessing e-cigarette advertisements and their engagement metrics, represented by users’ comments, shares, reposts, retweets, or likes. Since users’ engagement could be translated as endorsements of the promoted content, these metrics are integral components of this review. This selection criteria aimed to cover how effectively e-cigarette adverts resonated with the social media audience, ultimately shaping users’ perceptions and potentially influencing vaping behaviours.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2 below) were guided through precise definitions of the population, exposure, comparator, and outcome of interest [46]. To identify all potential studies related to the research question, the title and abstracts were initially screened independently by two reviewers (LS and GM) with any disagreements resolved with a third reviewer (SG). The full-text papers were again independently assessed by two reviewers with input from a third reviewer for disagreements.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Selection criteria for relevant studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002736.t002

Charting the data

Aiming to create a descriptive summary for all the studies selected for inclusion, a customized data charting table was formulated according to the research questions. An iterative, collaborative, and process-oriented data process was followed during this stage [37]. A descriptive summary of the extracted studies included general bibliographic information, population description, social media assessment, study design, conflicts of interest and funding of included studies. In addition to the first data chart, a second descriptive summary of the extracted studies included the study’s general bibliographic information, objectives, method, outcomes, and conclusion.

Summarizing, synthesizing, and reporting the results

Informed by the framework developed by Levac et al (2010) [38] the last phase included data analysis, reporting the results, and applying meaning to the results. The data analysis phase comprised a descriptive numerical summary and thematic analysis of the included studies, which respectively displayed relevant information and characteristics of the included papers and contributed to the identification of patterns within the extracted data by using defining themes according to the research questions [47].

Results were reported via a narrative synthesis of the evidence, including assessing the descriptive summary, defined themes, and considerations of included studies. This process aimed to correlate the commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media with vaping initiation, positive perceptions of vaping, and secondary outcomes of interest. Consideration of the findings from a broader perspective and their respective implications for prospective research was developed to advance the legitimacy of the scoping review [38].

Results

Descriptive summary of included studies

1385 papers were retrieved from the database searches (Fig 1). Once 614 duplicate papers were removed the title and abstracts of 771 papers were screened by three independent reviewers. 646 studies were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Through the process of reviewing 125 full papers, a further 114 studies were excluded. In total, eleven papers met the inclusion criteria [48–58] (Table 3) as shown in the flow diagram [59] (Fig 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. PRISMA flowchart diagram of searched studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002736.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Descriptive summary of study design and funding of extracted studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002736.t003

Thematic analysis

The summary of each study’s main theme, including its objective, method, main results, and key findings can be found in Table 4 below:

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Overview of the objectives, methods, main results and key findings of extracted studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002736.t004

Thematic analysis

Characteristics of the products marketed on social media.

According to studies by Chu et al. (2015) [49] and Laestadius et al. (2019) [54], promoting electronic cigarette liquid, including its flavours and nicotine levels, is a marketing strategy that effectively attracts social media users. Chu et al. (2015) [49] found that Twitter users retweeted posts containing flavour-related messages more frequently than non-flavour posts, indicating that flavours are an attractive feature of e-cig promotion on social media. The authors concluded that the promotion of flavours should be monitored closely by public health authorities. Laestadius et al. (2019) [54] evaluated most in-depth young adults’ perceptions of e-liquid marketing content on Instagram and found that posts promoting e-liquids were appealing to individuals across diverse smoking statuses, despite some discrepancies. For all participants in this study, the appeal of e-liquid marketing on Instagram was primarily influenced by the flavour’s endorsement, the trustworthiness of the social media account, the visual design of the posts, and nicotine levels [54]. In contrast, the appeal among all smoking status groups was reduced in the presence of vaping culture language and insensibility to nicotine addiction [54]. The use of Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning statements reduced the appeal of posts among several participants, although this effect was most significant for non-tobacco users. In comparison with other smoking status groups, non-tobacco users were more attracted to posts advertising nicotine-free e-liquids with recognizable flavours. The authors conclude the findings provide valuable insights for policymakers to develop interventions that aim to reduce the appeal of e-liquid promotion, especially to non-tobacco users [54].

Characteristics of posts.

Laestadius and colleagues (2020) [55] used the same participant sample and research methodology (focused groups) as Laestadius et al. (2019) [54] to evaluate young social media users’ perceptions of e-cigarette hashtags on Instagram and their role in health communication. Results showed that for the majority of the participants, hashtags were acknowledged as containing health-related claims (e.g., #vapingsavedmylife), despite being frequently considered ambiguous, exaggerated or unrealistic. Vape and dual user participants disclosed more support for e-cigarette hashtag claims in comparison with smokers and non-tobacco users, possibly because of their experiences and positive perceptions of vaping [55]. The research findings suggest that hashtags used to promote electronic cigarette brands on Instagram often contain health-related claims and should be further explored and considered for marketing regulatory purposes [55].

The hashtag #ejuice, frequently used in the promotion of electronic cigarettes on Instagram [60] was assessed in the Dormanesh, Kirkpatrick and Allem (2020) study [51], which aimed to explore the prevalence of cartoon images promoting electronic cigarettes products and its engagement. The analysis indicated that posts that included cartoons generated a higher level of user engagement (measured by likes) in comparison to posts without cartoons. The results of the study indicate that e-cigarette companies frequently utilize cartoons as a marketing strategy and that these cartoons are effective in attracting Instagram users [51].

Arguments, in the context of social media, are persuasive elements used to convince people to purchase a product and can be presented in the form of messages. Considering that Han and collaborators’ (2022) [52] explored non-smoking young adults’ responses to e-cigarette promotion on YouTube, by assessing participants’ reactions to argument-quantity commercials (determined accordingly to the number of persuasive words present). The study revealed that a reduced number of arguments had the most significant influence on various factors, such as participants’ attention, emotional arousal, user engagement (measured by the liking of advertisements), and vaping urges [52]. Authors believe that because more arguments usually contain more negative words (e.g., highlighting the risks of smoking versus vaping), it may activate non-smoking defensive message processing. Through these findings, meaningful insights can be used in favour of regulatory policies related to the promotion of e-cigarettes [52].

Celebrities and social media influencers.

Celebrities were found to be a popular marketing strategy to promote e-cigarettes on social media and to positively influence young social media users’ attitudes and intentions towards vaping. Phua, Jin, and Hahm (2018) [56] found that celebrity endorsement posts on Instagram resulted in higher positive attitudes towards e-cigarettes and smoking intentions compared to those endorsed by non-celebrities. Additionally, competence, goodwill, trustworthiness, and attractiveness moderators were higher in celebrity-endorsed posts [56]. Similarly, Phua, Lin, and Lim’s study (2018) [57] found that high degrees of congruence (or similarity) between celebrities and products increased positive attitudes towards the advertisement, word-of-mouth intent, and likelihood to use e-cigarettes. Findings also demonstrated that parasocial identification between participants and endorsers affected the intention to use e-cigarettes and that current smokers and e-cigarette users showed more favourable attitudes towards celebrity-endorsed adverts [57].

Han and collaborators (2022) [52] also assessed non-smokers’ responses to endorsement-type messages (including celebrities and non-celebrities endorses) on YouTube. As authors hypothesized, celebrity-endorsed commercials resulted in higher levels of participants’ attention in comparison to average-citizens ones. Furthermore, while an increased quantity of arguments in average-citizens-endorsed commercials resulted in a decrease in participants’ ad liking, the presence of celebrities’ endorsements did not have an impact on ad liking [52]. Surprisingly, the presence of celebrities in commercials resulted in lower emotional arousal and vape urge among participants, perhaps because non-smoker users are not primarily interested in e-cigarette topics [52].

Parasocial interactions also described as a consumer one-way interaction with a media personality, were explored in Daniel, Jackson and Westermann’s study (2018) [50]. The authors evaluated how marketing strategies benefit from users’ parasocial with social media influencers on YouTube under Taylor’s Six-segment Strategy Wheel (SSSW). Daniel, Jackson and Westermann (2018) [50] used the communication framework SSSW to evaluate the content presented on YouTube messages and how it resonates with the vaping community. The results revealed that the sensory and social segments were the most frequent components among the SSSW and positive parasocial interaction and parasocial satisfaction were identified in viewers’ comments on YouTube. The study findings suggest that the vape industry is benefiting from parasocial interactions between users and social media influencers, by creating a loyal community and generating a sense of group identity [50].

Users’ engagement with social media posts.

Chu, Sidhu and Valente (2015) [48] and Kong et al. (2021) [53] investigated the marketing strategies used by popular e-cigarette brands on social media and their respective engagement with users. Despite using different approaches, both studies found that e-cigarette companies use unique marketing tactics to target and engage potential customers on social media platforms. Chu, Sidhu and Valente (2015) [48] provided an overview of the marketing strategies used by Blu and V2 across multiple social media platforms and discovered that the term "e-cig" was frequently used on the four analysed social media platforms, with the most common categories being political information, user interactions, and links. They also found that Blu had more user engagement than V2 on all platforms, suggesting that their interactive and community-oriented approach was more effective in engaging social media users [48].

Kong et al. (2021) [53] evaluated marketing strategies of e-cigarette brand-sponsored profile pages on Facebook and their respective post engagement and found that photos and links were the most common types of posts, mainly featuring e-cigarette products, sales promotions, and non-sales promotional content. The study identified that posts featuring giveaways and whole devices had the highest levels of positive engagement from users [53]. Most importantly, over 40% of the posts could be accessed by underage Facebook users. These findings suggest that diverse marketing strategies are used to promote e-cigarettes on Facebook, and restrictive measures related to tobacco control are urgently needed as vaping content can be accessed by vulnerable users [53].

Electronic cigarette intentions, onset and escalation.

The previous studies mentioned above have shown that the promotion of electronic cigarette on social networking sites, mediated by the presence of arguments and celebrities, were associated with vaping intentions among young adults [52, 56]. In the study conducted by Pokhrel et al. (2021) [58], the researchers also examined the impact of exposure to e-cigarette promotion on social media on the initiation and escalation of vaping among youth. Additionally, the study investigated the role of positive e-cigarette use outcome expectancies (positive beliefs about vaping) among youths as a mediator in this relationship. Results indicated that among all social media included in the study (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Snapchat), the exposure to electronic cigarette promotion was highest on Facebook and Instagram [58]. Overall, high e-cigarette content exposure on social media was associated with vaping onset among never-e-cigarette users and vaping escalation among current vapers. The study revealed that affect regulation expectancies, which refer to beliefs that vaping can lead to positive health outcomes such as stress reduction, acted as mediators for both never-e-cigarette users and current vape participants [58]. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that electronic cigarette content on social media may influence youth vaping onset and progression, and users’ expectancy beliefs should be further explored to prevent the increase in vaping behaviours [58].

Discussion

This scoping review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic of the commercial promotion of e-cigarettes on social media, and its influence on positive perceptions of vaping and vaping in Anglophone countries. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, comprising diverse research designs, such as focus groups, content analysis, cross-sectional studies, and experiments. The selected studies for this review primarily focused on youths, which is not surprising given that they represent the largest demographic of social media users [61]. In addition, young individuals are particularly susceptible to being influenced by exposure to e-cigarettes online, and to developing vaping behaviours [62–64].

Key features of commercial promotion of e-cigarettes on social media comprised the endorsement of celebrities, the attractiveness of e-liquids (including flavours and nicotine levels), the incorporation of cartoons, hashtag usage, trustworthiness, and user engagement. Importantly, the trustworthiness of e-cigarette brands and endorsements were significant mediators of the appeal of promotional posts related to vaping advertisements on social networking sites [54, 56].

Overall, the included studies demonstrate that e-cigarette brands combine appealing marketing strategies to attract customers on social media, significantly fostering positive perceptions of vaping and shaping vaping behaviours, particularly among young individuals. These results align with previous research that has established a correlation between exposure to electronic cigarette promotion on social media and users’ attitudes towards vaping [20–23] and with other forms of e-cigarette exposure, such as television, radio, and magazines [65–69]. Furthermore, the use of celebrities promoting e-cigarettes online is likely to be reminiscent of the tobacco industry marketing practices [19].

Limitations of the studies include the U.S.-centric perspective in this research; all 11 studies explicitly state they were conducted in the U.S. or indicated this was the case. A significant number of U.S. studies dominated the screening of titles and abstracts, which could be attributed to the availability of substantial research funding at the national level for tobacco control, and because of the EVALI outbreak in 2019 [12–14], which fomented national-level research into the vaping impact on health and influenced debates on the role of e-cigarettes in tobacco control.

In the context of the U.S. EVALI epidemic outbreak in 2019 [12–14], a former (FDA) Commissioner stated that e-cigarettes pose an “existential threat” to youth. Because the FDA and the National Cancer Institute were key funders of the included studies, there may be a risk of bias towards US-based (and funded) studies finding unfavourable outcomes in the promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media [14]. Hence, the omission of a declaration of interest and funding information observed in Daniel, Jackson and Westerman’s (2018) study [50] is problematic. Conflicts of interest and funding should always be declared, as it is primordial information and an ethical principle in health research [70].

The sample size of the included studies is relatively small and non-diversified. For example, Laestadius et al. (2019) [54] and Laestadius et al. (2020) [55] shared the same small sample size of 69 participants; Han and collaborators (2022) study [52] primarily consisted of female participants who were White Caucasian; and Phua, Lin and Lim study (2018) [57] was majority consisted of Caucasian participants. The geographic disproportionality of electronic cigarette research contributes to increased discrepancies in regulatory policy development globally and highlights health inequalities. Although the included studies examined popular social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, and YouTube, they did not include TikTok, an emerging social media platform popular among youths [71], drawing attention to the need for updated and contextualized research on this topic.

An ecological validity issue was found in two experimental studies included in this scoping review [56, 57]. Respectively, the first study [56] consisted of screenshots of manipulated electronic cigarette pages on Instagram, displaying multiple pictures on each page, instead of exhibiting a regular social media feed, where participants could visualise individual photos as they scroll the screen down. Correspondingly, the second study [57] did not strive to use real adverts from the e-cigarette brand assessed for the study. Consequently, the methods used in these studies reduced the realistic scope of the experiment, by distancing participants from conventional social media performances. Lastly, in the context of assessing the influence of e-cigarette exposure on social networking sites on vaping onset and escalation among youths, only one study [21] was able to demonstrate this association, by monitoring participants over a long period.

Recommendations for future research

Our findings suggest additional research funders across and outside the Anglosphere should prioritize this area of study, contributing to equity in health research and establishing comparative parameters among similar and different populations. Further, by assessing larger and diversified sample sizes, future research could achieve more comprehensive results among target populations. In terms of transparency, prospective studies should always be clear about the research setting, and demographic characteristics of the studied population, and state any possible conflicts of interest. Additionally, future research should prioritize cross-platform studies, ensuring a more comprehensive understating of the commercial promotion of e-cigarettes on multiple networking sites, and acknowledging the nuances specific to each site.

To enhance ecological validity, prospective experimental studies should aim to recreate realistic environments for participants and evaluate the applicability of research findings to real-life settings [72]. Therefore, future research should preferably cover original social media users’ profiles, existent e-cigarette promotional content, and up-to-date versions of social networking sites. By avoiding using manipulated media (such as photoshopped images), authors can strive for greater findings’ legitimacy by increasing the realistic scope of the experiment. Moreover, experimental study outcomes could be improved by conducting long-term evaluations of participants’ vaping status after e-cigarette exposure on social media, consequently amplifying the existing knowledge related to e-cigarette initiation and escalation among the studied population.

Policy and practice implications

Our findings have implications for stricter marketing regulations for e-cigarette adverts on social networking sites. Specifically, the current study indicates that policymakers should consider establishing guidelines for e-cigarettes adverts on social media sponsored by celebrities, also enforcing disclosures on commercial posts [57]. Regulating tobacco-related content through counter-marketing messages across social networking sites may also contribute to reducing its appeal among youths and contesting misinformation [49]. Since e-cigarette promotional content is accessible to underage individuals, additional policy implications should focus on implementing and enforcing social media age restrictions [53, 57]. The vape industry frequently blurs the boundaries between commercial and public-generated content [54] which relates to other health-harming industry commercial activities on social media [73], as observed in the alcohol industry [74]. This concern is also reflected in the FDA’s limited control over non-commercial profiles on social media [30]. Consequently, it is crucial to mention the demand for additional regulation of user-generated content on social media, driven by tobacco control considerations. Considering that unambiguous definitions of tobacco-related products are urgently needed [75], classifying e-cigarettes as a unique product as undertaken by Canada, may contribute to improved jurisdictions, and harm reduction [76]. Overall, it is imperative to conclude that comprehensive statutory frameworks concerning e-cigarette advertisements are urgently needed across the globe, considering the alarming danger of vaping.

Limitations

This scoping review has several limitations. Firstly, grey literature was excluded from the search; hence, we might have missed relevant evidence related to the research topic. We also dismiss studies assessing e-cigarettes with other types of exposure, such as tobacco products, and traditional media. The application of these exclusion criteria contributed to a significant reduction in the availability of studies that could be included in this scoping review. Furthermore, we excluded user-generated content and thematic analysis of such content. We are aware that this exclusion could constrain the research scope and hinder the identification of pertinent studies, it was, however, a decision based on the primary objectives for this scoping review. Three studies included in this review were conducted more than five years ago [48–50], and their respective findings need to be considered according to the snapshot of the availability and performance of existing social media and marketing regulations at the time.

Conclusion

Evidence from 11 U.S.-based studies suggests electronic cigarette exposure on social networking sites is linked with positive attitudes towards vaping and vaping behaviours. This is expressed by user engagement with the promotional content, parasocial interactions between social media influencers and users, intentions to use the products, vaping initiation and vaping escalation. Limitations of the evidence include narrow settings, small and homogeneous sample sizes, research transparency concerns, limited inclusion of multiple social networking sites, ecological validity concerns in experimental studies, and few longitudinal methodologies to cover vaping initiation and escalation. Future research should focus on incorporating larger and heterogeneous sample sizes, broader the research settings, assessing multiple social media, increasing the ecological validity of experimental studies, and prioritising longitudinal studies. Overall, all studies support the urgent need for stricter e-cigarette marketing regulations of electronic cigarette promotion on social media, including establishing guidelines for e-cigarette adverts sponsored by celebrities, requiring e-cigarette advertisement disclosure, implementing counter-marketing messages, and enforcing age restrictions.

References

  1. 1. Hiemstra PS, Bals R. Basic science of electronic cigarettes: assessment in cell culture and in vivo models. Respir Res. 2016;17(1):127. Epub 20161007. pmid:27717371.
  2. 2. World Health Organization. Tobacco and electronic cigarettes. Accessed September 14, 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/tobacco-e-cigarettes.
    • 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Electronic Cigarettes (E-cigarettes) [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; [updated date unknown; cited date unknown]. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/about-e-cigarettes.html.
      • 4. Marques P, Piqueras L, Sanz M-J. An updated overview of e-cigarette impact on human health. Respiratory Research. 2021;22(1):151. pmid:34006276
      • 5. Hartmann-Boyce J, Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;11(11):Cd010216. Epub 20221117. pmid:36384212.
      • 6. Barrington-Trimis JL, Urman R, Berhane K, Unger JB, Cruz TB, Pentz MA, et al. E-Cigarettes and Future Cigarette Use. Pediatrics. 2016;138(1). Epub 20160613. pmid:27296866.
      • 7. Conner M, Grogan S, Simms-Ellis R, Flett K, Sykes-Muskett B, Cowap L, et al. Do electronic cigarettes increase cigarette smoking in UK adolescents? Evidence from a 12-month prospective study. Tob Control. 2017;27(4):365–72. Epub 20170817. pmid:28818839.
      • 8. O’Brien D, Long J, Quigley J, Lee C, McCarthy A, Kavanagh P. Association between electronic cigarette use and tobacco cigarette smoking initiation in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):954. pmid:34078351
      • 9. Adermark L, Galanti MR, Ryk C, Gilljam H, Hedman L. Prospective association between use of electronic cigarettes and use of conventional cigarettes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ERJ Open Res. 2021;7(3). Epub 20210712. pmid:34262971.
      • 10. Boakye E, Obisesan OH, Osei AD, Dzaye O, Uddin SMI, Hirsch GA, et al. The Promise and Peril of Vaping. Current Cardiology Reports. 2020;22(12):155. pmid:33037523
      • 11. Mir M, Rauf I, Goksoy S, Khedr A, Jama AB, Mushtaq H, et al. Electronic Cigarettes: Are They Smoking Cessation Aids or Health Hazards? Cureus. 2022;14(5):e25330. Epub 20220525. pmid:35761921.
      • 12. Besaratinia A, Tommasi S. Vaping epidemic: challenges and opportunities. Cancer Causes Control. 2020;31(7):663–7. Epub 20200503. pmid:32363571.
      • 13. Jones K, Salzman GA. The Vaping Epidemic in Adolescents. Mo Med. 2020;117(1):56–8.
      • 14. Farzal Z, Perry MF, Yarbrough WG, Kimple AJ. The Adolescent Vaping Epidemic in the United States-How It Happened and Where We Go From Here. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145(10):885–6. pmid:31436792.
      • 15. Jerzyński T, Stimson GV, Shapiro H, Król G. Estimation of the global number of e-cigarette users in 2020. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18(1):109. Epub 20211023. pmid:34688284.
      • 16. Hammond D, Reid JL, Rynard VL, Fong GT, Cummings KM, McNeill A, et al. Prevalence of vaping and smoking among adolescents in Canada, England, and the United States: repeat national cross sectional surveys. BMJ. 2019;365:l2219. pmid:31221636
      • 17. Lyzwinski LN, Naslund JA, Miller CJ, Eisenberg MJ. Global youth vaping and respiratory health: epidemiology, interventions, and policies. npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. 2022;32(1):14. pmid:35410990
      • 18. Struik LL, Dow-Fleisner S, Belliveau M, Thompson D, Janke R. Tactics for Drawing Youth to Vaping: Content Analysis of Electronic Cigarette Advertisements. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e18943. Epub 20200814. pmid:32663163.
      • 19. Shields DLL, Carol J, Balbach ED, McGee S. Hollywood on tobacco: how the entertainment industry understands tobacco portrayal. Tobacco Control. 1999;8(4):378–86. pmid:10629243
      • 20. Sawdey MD, Hancock L, Messner M, Prom-Wormley EC. Assessing the Association Between E-Cigarette Use and Exposure to Social Media in College Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Subst Use Misuse. 2017;52(14):1910–7. Epub 20170804. pmid:28777682.
      • 21. Pokhrel P, Fagan P, Herzog TA, Laestadius L, Buente W, Kawamoto CT, et al. Social media e-cigarette exposure and e-cigarette expectancies and use among young adults. Addict Behav. 2018;78:51–8. Epub 20171108. pmid:29127784.
      • 22. Booth P, Albery IP, Cox S, Frings D. Survey of the effect of viewing an online e-cigarette advertisement on attitudes towards cigarette and e-cigarette use in adults located in the UK and USA: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e027525. Epub 20190618. pmid:31217318.
      • 23. Vogel EA, Ramo DE, Rubinstein ML, Delucchi KL, Darrow SM, Costello C, et al. Effects of Social Media on Adolescents’ Willingness and Intention to Use E-Cigarettes: An Experimental Investigation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2021;23(4):694–701. pmid:31912147.
      • 24. Carr CT, Hayes RA. Social Media: Defining, Developing, and Divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication. 2015;23(1):46–65.
      • 25. World Health Organization et al. (2009). WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [electronic resource]: guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 Article 8, Article 11 and Article 13. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
        • 26. Kasza KA, Hyland AJ, Brown A, Siahpush M, Yong HH, McNeill AD, et al. The effectiveness of tobacco marketing regulations on reducing smokers’ exposure to advertising and promotion: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011;8(2):321–40. Epub 20110126. pmid:21556189.
        • 27. Henriksen L. Comprehensive tobacco marketing restrictions: promotion, packaging, price and place. Tob Control. 2012;21(2):147–53. pmid:22345238.
        • 28. Buchanan T, Lindorff K, Carson-Chahhoud K. E-cigarette regulation: Is it time for a new Framework Convention on Tobacco Control? Respirology. 2023;28(3):220–2. pmid:36754355
        • 29. FCTC/COP7 (9). Electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic nonnicotine delivery systems [Internet]. WHO. 2016. Accessed September 14, 2023. https://fctc.who.int/publications/m/item/fctc-cop7(9)-electronic-nicotine-delivery-systems-and-electronic-nonnicotine-delivery-systems
          • 30. Kong G, Laestadius L, Vassey J, Majmundar A, Stroup AM, Meissner HI, et al. Tobacco promotion restriction policies on social media. Tobacco Control. 2022:tobaccocontrol-2022-057348. pmid:36328589
          • 31. Kennedy RD, Awopegba A, D León E, Cohen JE. Global approaches to regulating electronic cigarettes. Tobacco Control. 2017;26(4):440–5. pmid:27903958
          • 32. Advertising nicotine vaping products to the Australian public [Internet]. Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). 2022. Accessed September 14, 2023. https://www.tga.gov.au/resources/resource/guidance/advertising-nicotine-vaping-products-australian-public
            • 33. Cornish EJ, Brose LS, McNeill A. The Use of Tobacco Industry Vaping Products in the UK and Product Characteristics: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2022;24(7):1003–11. pmid:34888689.
            • 34. Bhatt JM, Ramphul M, Bush A. An update on controversies in e-cigarettes. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2020;36:75–86. Epub 20200926. pmid:33071065.
            • 35. Pisinger C, Godtfredsen N, Bender AM. A conflict of interest is strongly associated with tobacco industry-favourable results, indicating no harm of e-cigarettes. Prev Med. 2019;119:124–31. Epub 20181218. pmid:30576685.
            • 36. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. Epub 20180904. pmid:30178033.
            • 37. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
            • 38. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010;5(1):69. pmid:20854677
            • 39. Chacon L, Mitchell G, Golder S. The commercial promotion of electronic cigarettes on social media and its influence on vaping initiation and positive perceptions of vaping in anglophone countries: a scoping review protocol. medRxiv. 2022:2022.11.11.22282178.
            • 40. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
              • 41. Amin S, Dunn AG, Laranjo L. Social Influence in the Uptake and Use of Electronic Cigarettes: A Systematic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2020;58(1):129–41. Epub 20191121. pmid:31761515.
              • 42. Lee SJ, Rees VW, Yossefy N, Emmons KM, Tan ASL. Youth and Young Adult Use of Pod-Based Electronic Cigarettes From 2015 to 2019: A Systematic Review. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(7):714–20. pmid:32478809.
              • 43. Kwon M, Park E. Perceptions and Sentiments About Electronic Cigarettes on Social Media Platforms: Systematic Review. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(1):e13673. Epub 20200115. pmid:31939747.
              • 44. Silver NA, Bertrand A, Kucherlapaty P, Schillo BA. Examining influencer compliance with advertising regulations in branded vaping content on Instagram. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1001115. Epub 20230109. pmid:36699883.
              • 45. Smith MJ, Buckton C, Patterson C, Hilton S. User-generated content and influencer marketing involving e-cigarettes on social media: a scoping review and content analysis of YouTube and Instagram. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):530. Epub 20230320. pmid:36941553.
              • 46. Morgan RL, Whaley P, Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environ Int. 2018;121(Pt 1):1027–31. Epub 20180827. pmid:30166065.
              • 47. Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2017;12:297–8.
              • 48. Chu KH, Sidhu AK, Valente TW. Electronic Cigarette Marketing Online: a Multi-Site, Multi-Product Comparison. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2015;1(2):e11. Epub 20150911. pmid:27227129.
              • 49. Chu KH, Unger JB, Cruz TB, Soto DW. Electronic Cigarettes on Twitter—Spreading the Appeal of Flavors. Tob Regul Sci. 2015;1(1):36–41. Epub 20150301. pmid:27853734.
              • 50. Daniel ES, Crawford Jackson EC, Westerman DK. The Influence of Social Media Influencers: Understanding Online Vaping Communities and Parasocial Interaction through the Lens of Taylor’s Six-Segment Strategy Wheel. Journal of Interactive Advertising. 2018;18(2):96–109.
              • 51. Dormanesh A, Kirkpatrick MG, Allem JP. Content Analysis of Instagram Posts From 2019 With Cartoon-Based Marketing of e-Cigarette-Associated Products. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(11):1110–2. pmid:32687566.
              • 52. Han J, Zheng X, Shen B, Sun S. Nonsmokers’ Responses to Online E-Cigarette Commercials: Effects of Argument Quantity and Celebrity Endorsement. Substance Use & Misuse. 2022;57(6):948–55. pmid:35306949
              • 53. Kong G, Kuguru KE, Bhatti H, Sen I, Morean ME. Marketing Content on E-Cigarette Brand-Sponsored Facebook Profile Pages. Subst Use Misuse. 2021;56(4):442–8. Epub 20210217. pmid:33596764.
              • 54. Laestadius LI, Penndorf KE, Seidl M, Cho YI. Assessing the Appeal of Instagram Electronic Cigarette Refill Liquid Promotions and Warnings Among Young Adults: Mixed Methods Focus Group Study. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(11):e15441. Epub 20191125. pmid:31763987.
              • 55. Laestadius LI, Penndorf K, Seidl M, Pokhrel P, Patrick R, Cho YI. Young Adult Identification and Perception of Hashtag-Based Vaping Claims on Instagram. Health Educ Behav. 2020;47(4):611–8. Epub 20200608. pmid:32506949.
              • 56. Phua J, Jin SV, Hahm JM. Celebrity-endorsed e-cigarette brand Instagram advertisements: Effects on young adults’ attitudes towards e-cigarettes and smoking intentions. Journal of Health Psychology. 2018;23(4):550–60. pmid:28810409.
              • 57. Phua J, Lin J-S, Lim DJ. Understanding consumer engagement with celebrity-endorsed E-Cigarette advertising on instagram. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018;84:93–102.
              • 58. Pokhrel P, Ing C, Kawamoto CT, Laestadius L, Buente W, Herzog TA. Social media’s influence on e-cigarette use onset and escalation among young adults: What beliefs mediate the effects? Addict Behav. 2021;112:106617. Epub 20200819. pmid:32911352.
              • 59. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2022;18(2):e1230. pmid:36911350
              • 60. Allem J-P, 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. pmid:29263018
              • 61. Vogels, E., Gelles-Watnick, R. & Massarat, N., 2022. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022, Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. United States of America. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2644169/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/3667002/ on 30 May 2023. CID: 20.500.12592/300dsq.
                • 62. Brose LS, Brown J, Hitchman SC, McNeill A. Perceived relative harm of electronic cigarettes over time and impact on subsequent use. A survey with 1-year and 2-year follow-ups. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;157:106–11. Epub 20151022. pmid:26507173.
                • 63. Kwon E, Seo D-C, Lin H-C, Chen Z. Predictors of youth e-cigarette use susceptibility in a U.S. nationally representative sample. Addictive Behaviors. 2018;82:79–85. pmid:29501011
                • 64. Zheng X, Lin HC. How Does Online e-cigarette Advertisement Promote Youth’s e-cigarettes Use? The Mediating Roles of Social Norm and Risk Perceptions. Health Commun. 2023;38(7):1388–94. Epub 20211206. pmid:34872415.
                • 65. Villanti AC, Rath JM, Williams VF, Pearson JL, Richardson A, Abrams DB, et al. Impact of Exposure to Electronic Cigarette Advertising on Susceptibility and Trial of Electronic Cigarettes and Cigarettes in US Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1331–9. Epub 20151116. pmid:26574551.
                • 66. Camenga D, Gutierrez KM, Kong G, Cavallo D, Simon P, Krishnan-Sarin S. E-cigarette advertising exposure in e-cigarette naïve adolescents and subsequent e-cigarette use: A longitudinal cohort study. Addict Behav. 2018;81:78–83. Epub 20180206. pmid:29432916.
                • 67. Zheng X, Li W, Wong SW, Lin HC. Social media and E-cigarette use among US youth: Longitudinal evidence on the role of online advertisement exposure and risk perception. Addict Behav. 2021;119:106916. Epub 20210318. pmid:33798917.
                • 68. Duan Z, Wang Y, Emery SL, Chaloupka FJ, Kim Y, Huang J. Exposure to e-cigarette TV advertisements among U.S. youth and adults, 2013–2019. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251203. Epub 20210507. pmid:33961669.
                • 69. Duke JC, Allen JA, Eggers ME, Nonnemaker J, Farrelly MC. Exploring Differences in Youth Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Electronic Cigarette Television Advertisements. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1382–6. Epub 20151226. pmid:26706908.
                • 70. McCambridge J. Ethical issues raised by tobacco industry-linked research in the era of e-cigarettes. Addiction. 2016;111(8):1334–5. pmid:26914175
                • 71. Tianze S, Carmen CWL, Jack C, Brandon C, Lily D, Calvert T, et al. Vaping on TikTok: a systematic thematic analysis. Tobacco Control. 2023;32(2):251. pmid:34312317
                • 72. Lewkowicz DJ. The Concept of Ecological Validity: What Are Its Limitations and Is It Bad to Be Invalid? Infancy. 2001;2(4):437–50. Epub 20011001. pmid:33451191.
                • 73. Radoš Krnel S, Levičnik G, van Dalen W, Ferrarese G, Tricas-Sauras S. Effectiveness of Regulatory Policies on Online/Digital/Internet-Mediated Alcohol Marketing: a Systematic Review. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health. 2023;13(1):115–28. pmid:36732366
                • 74. Nicholls J. Everyday, Everywhere: Alcohol Marketing and Social Media—Current Trends. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2012;47(4):486–93. pmid:22532575
                • 75. Gruszczynski L, Melillo M. The FCTC dilemma on heated tobacco products. Global Health. 2020;16(1):81. Epub 20200911. pmid:32912239.
                • 76. Campus B, Fafard P, St. Pierre J, Hoffman SJ. Comparing the regulation and incentivization of e-cigarettes across 97 countries. Social Science &Medicine. 2021;291:114187. pmid:34763132