4.3 Article

Motivations and Limitations Associated with Vaping among People with Mental Illness: A Qualitative Analysis of Reddit Discussions

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14010007

关键词

social media; mental disorders; smoking cessation; harm reduction; qualitative research; electronic cigarettes; Reddit; vaping

资金

  1. International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (IPRS)
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council, Centre for Research Excellence in Mental Health Systems Improvement (NHMRC) [GNT1041131]
  3. NHMRC Career Development Fellowship [GNT1061978]
  4. UQ Centennial Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to understand the nature and significance of online lay discussions about e-cigarettes and mental illness. We systematically searched the website Reddit.com using keywords related to e-cigarettes and mental illness. We coded relevant posts into themes under the framework of motivations for and limitations of vaping for people with mental illness. The thematic analysis included 3263 comments from 133 discussion threads. Six themes were classified as motivations to vape for people with mental illness: Self-medication; Quitting smoking; Freedom and control; Hobby; Social connectedness; and Motivation from caregivers and online communities. The limitations of vaping included: Unsatisfactory substitute for cigarettes and psychiatric medicines; Drug interactions; Nicotine addiction; Risks of e-liquid; Practical difficulties and Cost. People with mental illness; and their carers; use online discussion boards like Reddit to discuss the benefits and limitations of e-cigarettes for people with mental illness. Both positive and negative views exist. Media platforms like Reddit may shape the opinions of stakeholders and generate lay expertise about contentious health topics such as e-cigarettes. These findings have implications for policy and practice concerning assisting smokers with mental illness to reduce their health risk through switching to e-cigarettes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据