Comparison of Information between Domestic and International Web-Pages for E-Cigarettes: What Are the Differences between Naver and Google?

Sun Ju Kim; Eal Whan Park; Eun Young Choi; Yoo-seock Cheong

doi:10.15384/kjhp.2019.19.1.25

Journal List > Korean J Health Promot > v.19(1) > 1120087

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Park, Choi, and Cheong: Comparison of Information between Domestic and International Web-Pages for E-Cigarettes: What Are the Differences between Naver and Google?

Original Article

Korean Journal of Health Promotion 2019; 19(1): 25-31.

Published online: 31 March 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15384/kjhp.2019.19.1.25

Comparison of Information between Domestic and International Web-Pages for E-Cigarettes: What Are the Differences between Naver and Google?

Sun Ju Kim, Eal Whan Park, Eun Young Choi, Yoo-seock Cheong

Department of Family Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea.

Corresponding author: Yoo-seock Cheong, MD, PhD. Department of Family Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, 201 Manghyang-ro, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31116, Korea. Tel: +82-41-550-6385, Fax: +82-41-565-6167, drloved@hanmail.net

Received 16 December 2018 Revised 29 January 2019 Accepted 30 January 2019

Korean Society for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

(open-access, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/):

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Online health information can influence consumers to make informed decisions. There are conflicting messages online about health concerns on the use of e-cigarettes. We aimed to investigate differences in those messages through Naver and Google's English versions, which are the most representative portal sites in Korea and in the world.

Methods

We reviewed the top 100 web pages related to health effects of e-cigarettes on Naver and Google in May 2018. Two medical doctors sorted the web pages into three groups as positive, negative, and mixed messages for e-cigarettes, as well as two groups based on the relative safety of conventional smoking versus e-cigarettes.

Results

There were 10 and 27 positive, 65 and 45 negative, and 25 and 28 mixed messages on Naver and Google, respectively. There were 15 messages on Naver and 53 on Google that considered e-cigarettes safer than conventional cigarettes. The most frequent topics were toxicity (71%) and diseases (22%) on Naver. Google provides topics of health concerns for young people, including gateway effect (47%), diseases (35%), and toxicity (25%). Particularly, harm reduction which was not present on Naver, came up on Google as 24%.

Conclusions

We found that Naver provides more negative messages on e-cigarettes than does Google, which means that Koreans are exposed more to negative information on e-cigarettes than are foreign people who use Google. In future, more open discussions about harm reduction should be conducted to resolve the imbalance in information regarding health effects of e-cigarettes in Korea.

Keywords: Electronic nicotine delivery system, Harm reduction, Smoking cessation, Internet

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Distribution of subjects of e-cigarette web pages between Naver and Google.

Table 1

Assessment of web pages for e-cigarettes on Naver and Google

P<0.001 by χ² test.

Table 2

E-cigarettes mentioned as safer products than conventional smoking on Naver and Google

P<0.001 by χ² test.

References

1. Kennedy RD, Awopegba A, De León E, Cohen JE. Global approaches to regulating electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2017; 26(4):440–445.

2. Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, McRobbie H, Parag V, Williman J, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013; 382(9905):1629–1637.

3. Giovenco DP, Delnevo CD. Prevalence of smoking cessation by electronic cigarette use status in a national sample of recent smokers. Addict Behav. 2018; 76:129–134.

4. Park SH, Duncan DT, Shahawy OE, Lee L, Shearston JA, Tamura K, et al. Characteristics of adults who switched from cigarette smoking to e-cigarettes. Am J Prev Med. 2017; 53(5):652–660.

5. Zhu SH, Zhuang YL, Wong S, Cummins SE, Tedeschi GJ. E-cigarette use and associated changes in population smoking cessation: evidence from US current population surveys. BMJ. 2017; 358:j3262.

6. Glasser AM, Collins L, Pearson JL, Abudayyeh H, Niaura RS, Abrams DB, et al. Overview of electronic nicotine delivery systems: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2017; 52(2):e33–e66.

7. Lee S, Grana RA, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarette use among Korean adolescents: a cross-sectional study of market penetration, dual use, and relationship to quit attempts and former smoking. J Adolesc Health. 2014; 54(6):684–690.

8. Dutra LM, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarettes and conventional cigarette use among U.S. adolescents: a cross-sectional study. JAMA Pediatr. 2014; 168(7):610–617.

9. Singh T, Arrazola RA, Corey CG, Husten CG, Neff LJ, Homa DM, et al. Tobacco use among middle and high school students-United States, 2011-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016; 65(14):361–367.

10. Warner KE. The remarkable decrease in cigarette smoking by American youth: further evidence. Prev Med Rep. 2015; 2:259–261.

11. Bauld L, MacKintosh AM, Ford A, McNeill A. E-cigarette uptake amongst UK youth: experimentation, but little or no regular use in nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016; 18(1):102–103.

12. Abrams DB, Glasser AM, Pearson JL, Villanti AC, Collins LK, Niaura RS. Harm minimization and tobacco control: reframing societal views of nicotine use to rapidly save lives. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018; 39:193–213.

13. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Health and Medicine Division. Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice. Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. Public health consequences of e-cigarette. Washington: National Academies Press;2018.

14. Levy DT, Borland R, Lindblom EN, Goniewicz ML, Meza R, Holford TR, et al. Potential deaths averted in USA by replacing cigarettes with e-cigarettes. Tob Control. 2018; 27(1):18–25.

15. Farnoud AM. Vaping is less harmful than conventional smoking [Internet]. London: BioMed Central;2017. Accessed May 31, 2018. Available from: http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-health/2017/11/20/vaping-is-less-harmful-than-conventional-smoking/.

16. Eriksen M, Mackay J, Schluger N, Gomeshtapeh FI, Drope J. The Tobacco Atlas. 5th ed. Atlanta: The American Cancer Society;2015.

17. Russell MA. Low-tar medium-nicotine cigarettes: a new approach to safer smoking. Br Med J. 1976; 1(6023):1430–1433.

18. Polosa R, Rodu R, Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Raciti C. A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for electronic cigarette. Harm Reduct J. 2013; 10:19.

19. Gartner C, Hall W. Harm reduction policies for tobacco users. Int J Drug Policy. 2010; 21(2):129–130.

20. Polosa R, Morjaria JB, Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Russo C, Alamo A, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of electronic cigarette in real-life: a 24-month prospective observational study. Intern Emerg Med. 2014; 9(5):537–546.

21. Polosa R, Morjaria JB, Caponnetto P, Battaglia E, Russo C, Ciampi C, et al. Blood pressure control in smokers with arterial hypertension who switched to electronic cigarettes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016; 13(11):1123.

22. Kelland K. UK experts urge smokers to switch to e-cigs for big health gains [Internet]. London: Reuters;2018. Accessed May 31, 2018. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-ecigarettes/uk-experts-urge-smokers-to-switch-to-e-cigs-for-big-health-gains-idUSKBN1FQ001.

23. Webster N. Medical opinion shifts from tolerating e-cigs to actively promoting them to smokers [Internet]. Abu Dhabi: The National;2018. Accessed May 31, 2018. Available from: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/special-report-medical-opinionshifts-from-tolerating-e-cigs-to-actively-promoting-them-tosmokers-1.726529.

24. House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee. E-cigarettes: seventh report of session 2017-19 [Internet]. London: Science and Technology Committee;2018. Accessed Aug 31, 2018. Available from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/505/505.pdf.

25. Jeram J. Smokeless products are key to NZ's smoke-free future [Internet]. Wellington: Scoop media;2018. Accessed May 31, 2018. Available from: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1805/S00081/smokeless-products-are-key-to-nzs-smoke-free-future.htm.

26. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA announces comprehensive regulatory plan to shift trajectory of tobaccorelated disease, death. Silver Spring: U.S. Food and Drug Administration;2017. Accessed May 31, 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm568923.htm.

TOOLS

Similar articles