Content Analysis of Nicotine Poisoning (Nic Sick) Videos on TikTok: Retrospective Observational Infodemiology Study.

BACKGROUND: TikTok is a microvideo social media platform currently experiencing rapid growth and with 60% of its monthly users between the ages of 16 and 24 years. Increased exposure to e-cigarette content on social media may influence patterns of use, including the risk of overconsumption and possible nicotine poisoning, when users engage in trending challenges online. However, there is limited research assessing the characteristics of nicotine poisoning-related content posted on social media. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the characteristics of content on TikTok that is associated with a popular nicotine poisoning-related hashtag. METHODS: We collected TikTok posts associated with the hashtag #nicsick, using a Python programming package (Selenium) and used an inductive coding approach to analyze video content and characteristics of interest. Videos were manually annotated to generate a codebook of the nicotine sickness-related themes. Statistical analysis was used to compare user engagement characteristics and video length in content with and without active nicotine sickness TikTok topics. RESULTS: A total of 132 TikTok videos associated with the hashtag #nicsick were manually coded, with 52.3% (69/132) identified as discussing firsthand and secondhand reports of suspected nicotine poisoning symptoms and experiences. More than one-third of nicotine poisoning-related content (26/69, 37.68%) portrayed active vaping by users, which included content with vaping behavior such as vaping tricks and overconsumption, and 43% (30/69) of recorded users self-reported experiencing nicotine sickness, poisoning, or adverse events such as vomiting following nicotine consumption. The average follower count of users posting content related to nicotine sickness was significantly higher than that for users posting content unrelated to nicotine sickness (W=2350.5, P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: TikTok users openly discuss experiences, both firsthand and secondhand, with nicotine adverse events via the #nicsick hashtag including reports of overconsumption resulting in sickness. These study results suggest that there is a need to assess the utility of digital surveillance on emerging social media platforms for vaping adverse events, particularly on sites popular among youth and young adults. As vaping product use-patterns continue to evolve, digital adverse event detection likely represents an important tool to supplement traditional methods of public health surveillance (such as poison control center prevalence numbers).

Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015.

IMPORTANCE: Given scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians in 2015 and the association of physician specialty and sex with receipt of payments from industry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational, retrospective, population-based study of licensed US physicians (per National Plan & Provider Enumeration System) linked to 2015 Open Payments reports of industry payments. A total of 933 295 allopathic and osteopathic physicians. Outcomes were compared across specialties (surgery, primary care, specialists, interventionalists) and between 620 166 male (66.4%) and 313 129 female (33.6%) physicians using regression models adjusting for geographic Medicare-spending region and sole proprietorship. EXPOSURES: Physician specialty and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reported physician payment from industry (including nature, number, and value), categorized as general payments (including consulting fees and food and beverage), ownership interests (including stock options, partnership shares), royalty or license payments, and research payments. Associations between physician characteristics and reported receipt of payment. RESULTS: In 2015, 449 864 of 933 295 physicians (133 842 [29.8%] women), representing approximately 48% of all US physicians were reported to have received $2.4 billion in industry payments, including approximately $1.8 billion for general payments, $544 million for ownership interests, and $75 million for research payments. Compared with 47.7% of primary care physicians (205 830 of 431 819), 61.0% of surgeons (110 604 of 181 372) were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001). Surgeons had a mean per-physician reported payment value of $6879 (95% CI, $5895-$7862) vs $2227 (95% CI, $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288). After adjusting for geographic spending region and sole proprietorship, men within each specialty had a higher odds of receiving general payments than did women: surgery, 62.5% vs 56.5% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31); primary care, 50.9% vs 43.0% (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39); specialists, 36.3% vs 33.4% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17); and interventionalists, 58.1% vs 40.7% (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.97-2.10; P < .001 for all tests). Similarly, men reportedly received more royalty or license payments than did women: surgery, 1.2% vs 0.03% (OR, 43.20; 95% CI, 25.02-74.57); primary care, 0.02% vs 0.002% (OR, 9.34; 95% CI, 4.11-21.23); specialists, 0.08% vs 0.01% (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.71-7.89); and for interventionalists, 0.13% vs 0.04% (OR, 7.98; 95% CI, 2.87-22.19; P < .001 for all tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to data from 2015 Open Payments reports, 48% of physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments, primarily general payments, with a higher likelihood and higher value of payments to physicians in surgical vs primary care specialties and to male vs female physicians.

Integrating traditional indigenous medicine and western biomedicine into health systems: a review of Nicaraguan health policies and miskitu health services.

Throughout the world, indigenous peoples have advocated for the right to retain their cultural beliefs and traditional medicine practices. In 2007, the more than 370 million people representing 5000 distinct groups throughout the world received global recognition with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP Article 24 affirms the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional medicines and health practices, and to all social and health services. Although not a legally binding agreement, UNDRIP encourages nation states to comply and implement measures to support and uphold its provisions. Within the context of indigenous health and human rights, Nicaragua serves as a unique case study for examining implementation of UNDRIP Article 24 provisions due to the changes in the Nicaraguan Constitution that strive for the overarching goal of affirming an equal right to health for all Nicaraguans and supporting the integration of traditional medicine and biomedicine at a national and regional level. To explore this subject further, we conducted a review of the policy impact of UNDRIP on health services accessible to the Miskitu indigenous peoples of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN). We found that although measures to create therapeutic cooperation are woven into Nicaraguan health plans at the national and regional level, in practice, the delivery of integrated health services has been implemented with varying results. Our review suggests that the method of policy implementation and efforts to foster intercultural collaborative approaches involving respectful community engagement are important factors when attempting to assess the effectiveness of UNDRIP implementation into national health policy and promoting traditional medicine access. In response, more study and close monitoring of legislation that acts to implement or align with UNDRIP Article 24 is necessary to ensure adequate promotion and access to traditional medicines and health services for indigenous populations in Nicaragua and beyond.