Social Media Message Designs to Educate Adolescents About E-Cigarettes
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: E-cigarette use is increasing among adolescents, despite potential harms. Social media messages are a promising way to educate youth about e-cigarettes, yet little is known about what message topics and formats will have beneficial impacts for message reception, reach, e-cigarette knowledge, and beliefs about harms. METHODS: A national convenience sample of adolescents (n = 928, aged 15-18 years) in high school was recruited for an online experiment. In October 2019, participants were randomized to view one of three social media formats (visual based, quiz, and text only) or a no-message control. Participants in format conditions viewed six unique topics in a random order. Outcomes were e-cigarette knowledge and beliefs. Message reactions and sharing preferences were also assessed among youth who saw social media messages. RESULTS: Social media messages led to greater knowledge (Cohen's f = .19; p < .001) and beliefs (f = .16; p < .001) about harms of e-cigarettes compared with the control, regardless of format. Almost four in five adolescents (79%) reported they would share the social media messages, most likely in person (49%) and with friends (52%). Message topics for missing out because of lung damage, having uncontrolled moods, and ingesting specific harmful chemicals elicited higher intended message reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Social media messages can educate about e-cigarette harms. Social media campaigns are a promising e-cigarette education strategy to reach youth, directly and potentially through peer-to-peer sharing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Social media was identified as a complex and multifaceted tool, offering opportunities for connection, education, and identity exploration, while also highlighting concerns relating to misinformation, social comparison, online victimisation and highly immersive or difficult-to-disengage-from forms of engagement.
“Consistent with previous research (e.g., [4]), social media was identifed as a complex and multifaceted tool, ofering opportunities for connection, education, and identity exploration [19, 55, 56], while also highlighting concerns relating to misinformation, social comparison, online victimisation and highly immersive or difcult-to-disengage-from forms of engagement [24, 25, 28, 57].”
From The Complex and Multifaceted Nature of Social Media: Perspectives From Young Adolescents, Parents and Experts (2026) · cites this paper as [55]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 65
- Authors
- Lazard, A. J.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lazard, Allison J.
- ORCID
- Lazard, Allison J.
- Venue
- Journal of Adolescent Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 130-137
- ISSN
- 1054-139X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3041048920
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 4.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Adolescent Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of North Carolina
- International Business Machines Corporation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Keywords
- electronic cigarettes, adolescent e-cigarette use, social media health messaging, health education, e-cigarette knowledge, message format, peer-to-peer sharing
- MeSH terms
- Vaping, Adolescent, Humans, Text Messaging, Social Media, Tobacco Products, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review