Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Objective: Vaping, initially a smoking cessation aid, is now a widespread recreational activity sometimes associated with perceived health concerns. This study explored attitudes, harm perceptions and cessation barriers in the context of participants’ vaping behaviours, guided by the theoretical lens of fundamental social causes. Design and Setting: The study focused on a subset of 571 current adult vapers from a larger survey investigating vaping attitudes. It analysed open-text survey responses relating to vaping behaviours. To analyse the responses, we employed layered analyses, using deductive conceptual mapping to inform an inductive thematic content analysis. Results: Participants mentioned nuanced vaping risks, citing cancer and respiratory concerns, often comparing them to tobacco’s well-known harmful effects. Despite acknowledging vaping’s potential harms, participants perceived the practice to be less harmful than smoking, emphasising relative safety. Some viewed vaping positively for former smokers, contingent on regulated products. This complex attitude balance reflected the intricate interplay between health concerns and social dynamics. Recurrent vaping symbolised consistent engagement, with cravings and widespread availability associated with quitting challenges. Conclusions: Participants’ nuanced perceptions of health risks reflect a harm duopoly, resembling illicit drug harm tiering. There is a complex interplay between health knowledge and social influences in the context of vaping behaviours. Study findings underscore the need for messaging interventions discouraging vaping among those who do not smoke tobacco to consider these health and social dynamics, leveraging collaborative design.
Objective: Vaping, initially a smoking cessation aid, is now a widespread recreational activity sometimes associated with perceived health concerns. This study explored attitudes, harm perceptions and cessation barriers in the context of participants’ vaping behaviours, guided by the theoretical lens of fundamental social causes. Design and Setting: The study focused on a subset of 571 current adult vapers from a larger survey investigating vaping attitudes. It analysed open-text survey responses relating to vaping behaviours. To analyse the responses, we employed layered analyses, using deductive conceptual mapping to inform an inductive thematic content analysis. Results: Participants mentioned nuanced vaping risks, citing cancer and respiratory concerns, often comparing them to tobacco’s well-known harmful effects. Despite acknowledging vaping’s potential harms, participants perceived the practice to be less harmful than smoking, emphasising relative safety. Some viewed vaping positively for former smokers, contingent on regulated products. This complex attitude balance reflected the intricate interplay between health concerns and social dynamics. Recurrent vaping symbolised consistent engagement, with cravings and widespread availability associated with quitting challenges. Conclusions: Participants’ nuanced perceptions of health risks reflect a harm duopoly, resembling illicit drug harm tiering. There is a complex interplay between health knowledge and social influences in the context of vaping behaviours. Study findings underscore the need for messaging interventions discouraging vaping among those who do not smoke tobacco to consider these health and social dynamics, leveraging collaborative design.
Background Mental health is highly correlated with a person’s social and economic circumstances, and the recent COVID-19 pandemic made this connection uniquely visible. Yet a discourse of personal responsibility for mental health often dominates in mental health promotion campaigns, media coverage and lay understandings, contributing to the stigmatisation of mental ill-health. Methods In this study, we analysed how the concept of ‘mental health’ was discursively constructed in an online mental health peer-support forum in Australia during 2020, the period of the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. An approach informed by Critical Discursive Psychology was employed to analyse all posts made to a discussion thread entitled “Coping during the coronavirus outbreak” in 2020, a total of 1,687 posts. Results Two main interpretative repertoires concerning mental health were identified. Under the first repertoire, mental health was understood as resulting largely from the regular performance of a suite of self-care behaviours. Under the second repertoire, mental health was understood as resulting largely from external circumstances outside of the individual’s control. The existence of two different repertoires of mental health created an ideological dilemma which posters negotiated when reporting mental ill-health. A recurring pattern of accounting for mental ill-health was noted in which posters employed a three-part concessive structure to concede Repertoire 1 amid assertions of Repertoire 2; and used disclaimers, justifications, and excuses to avoid negative typification of their identity as ignorant or irresponsible. Conclusions Mental ill-health was commonly oriented to by forum posters as an accountable or morally untoward state, indicating the societal pervasiveness of a discourse of personal responsibility for mental health. Such discourses are likely to contribute to the stigmatisation of those suffering from mental ill-health. There is a need therefore for future communications about mental health to be framed in a way that increases awareness of social determinants, as well as for policy responses to effect material change to social determinants of mental health.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.