We examined openly shared substance-related tweets to estimate prevalent sentiment around substance use and identify popular substance use activities. Additionally, we investigated associations between substance-related tweets and business characteristics and demographics at the zip code level.
A total of 79,848,992 tweets were collected from 48 states in the continental United States from April 2015-March 2016 through the Twitter API, of which 688,757 were identified as being related to substance use. We implemented a machine learning algorithm (maximum entropy text classifier) to estimate sentiment score for each tweet. Zip code level summaries of substance use tweets were created and merged with the 2013 Zip Code Business Patterns and 2010 US Census Data.
Quality control analyses with a random subset of tweets yielded excellent agreement rates between computer generated and manually generated labels: 97%, 88%, 86%, 75% for underage engagement in substance use, alcohol, drug, and smoking tweets, respectively. Overall, 34.1% of all substance-related tweets were classified as happy. Alcohol was the most frequently tweeted substance, followed by marijuana. Regression results suggested more convenience stores in a zip code were associated with higher percentages of tweets about alcohol. Larger zip code population size and higher percentages of African Americans and Hispanics were associated with fewer tweets about substance use and underage engagement. Zip code economic disadvantage was associated with fewer alcohol tweets but more drug tweets.
The patterns in substance use mentions on Twitter differ by zip code economic and demographic characteristics. Online discussions have great potential to glorify and normalize risky behaviors. Health promotion and underage substance prevention efforts may include interactive social media campaigns to counter the social modeling of risky behaviors.
Citation: Meng H-W, Kath S, Li D, Nguyen QC (2017) National substance use patterns on Twitter. PLoS ONE 12(11): e0187691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187691
Editor: Christophe Giraud-Carrier, Brigham Young University, UNITED STATES
Received: May 19, 2016; Accepted: October 23, 2017; Published: November 6, 2017
Copyright: © 2017 Meng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s Big Data to Knowledge Initiative (BD2K) grants 5K01ES025433; 3K01ES025433-03S1 (Dr. Nguyen, PI). Partial funding for open access provided by the UMD Libraries' Open Access Publishing Fund.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Use of social networking sites such as Twitter is widespread among people of all ages, though it is particularly popular among younger crowds. Adolescents and young adults are increasingly sharing ideas, searching for opinions, and interacting with their peers through social media. The internet has become a boundless platform for expressing ideas and observing social norms. Through the adoption of smartphones, the diffusion of content sharing and behavior sharing are just several clicks away. A comprehensive report from Pew Research Center indicates 90% of young adults are active users of social media .
Researchers are increasingly utilizing social networking sites to develop techniques to track and monitor social interactions [2–4], infectious disease outbreaks [5–7] and public sentiment on various topics [8–12]. Recent studies have incorporated geotagged Twitter data to monitor engagements with substance use. For instance, a recent study found approximately 1 in every 2000 tweets sent was about marijuana . In another study that collected over 7000 smoking-related tweets over a 15-day period, the overall sentiment was positive rather than negative or neutral . A study with hookah-related tweets found 87% of these tweets either normalized or promoted the activity of hookah smoking . These examples suggest social media platforms have great potential to capture public sentiment and track substance activities.
Alcohol consumption is a popular social activity among today’s young crowds. Binge drinking (i.e., consumption of 5 or more drinks in a row) is most popular among young adults between ages 18 and 25 . A recent study that collected nearly 12 million alcohol-related tweets found that the number of pro-drinking tweets exceeded anti-drinking tweets by 10 times . While an alcohol-related tweet does not necessarily indicate actual alcohol consumption, greater alcohol use is associated with more alcohol-content shared online .
Marijuana is another commonly abused substance across the nation. One study that used data from the 2013–2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found approximately 1 in 14 adolescents aged 12–17 have used marijuana in the past 30 days . With the legalization of recreational marijuana in several states, public acceptance towards marijuana use continues to rise. In a study that examined 7000 marijuana-related tweets, sentiment analysis revealed the majority of marijuana-related tweets were pro-marijuana, with the most common themes being the intention to use or cravings for marijuana .
Peer influence and perceived norms also have significant influence and are highly correlated with substance abuse and risky behaviors [17–21]. The Theory of Planned Behavior posits that personal beliefs toward a behavior, perceived factors that may facilitate or hinder the performance of the behavior, and perception of social norms toward the behavior together facilitate behavioral intention . In this regard, information gathered from the internet may be a means of shaping social norms for many. Therefore, we implemented a study to explore substance use mentions and indications of underage participation on Twitter.
The purpose of this study was to (1) describe the pattern of substance use mentions on Twitter and (2) examine popular substance items openly shared on Twitter. We created a list of keywords relating to alcohol, tobacco, substance use, and underage engagement in order to retrieve tweets about substance use and indications of underage involvement. Then, content analysis was performed on substance-related tweets to derive popular themes about substance use openly shared on Twitter, as well as patterns of underage engagement with substances.
Through Twitter’s Streaming Application Programming Interface (API), we began a continuous collection of a random 1% subset of publicly available tweets with geographic coordinates. A tweet is a message of 140 or fewer characters shared on Twitter. From April 2015 to March 2016, 79,848,992 geotagged tweets across the contiguous United States were collected, of which 688,757 were identified as being related to substance use (i.e., alcohol, smoking, and recreational substance and illicit drug use). All Twitter data collected were from users who voluntarily allowed GPS coordinates to be added to their tweets. All geotagged tweets originated from the contiguous 48 states of the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. The study was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. The authors have agreed and adhered to Twitter’s Terms of Service and Developer’s Agreement and Policy.
We downloaded census tract boundary data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s website. The national zip code boundary data were obtained from the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). We performed a spatial join operation to associate the collected geotagged tweets with the zip codes and census tracts they fall within. Specifically, we used Python and some GIS Python libraries (Shapely, Rtree, and Fiona) to accomplish the spatial joins. R-tree was used to index the data to speed up spatial queries. After the processing, the zip code area and census tract identifiers were appended to each geotagged tweet for further statistical analysis. Some tweets (0.02%) were located in Mexico and Canada, and were thus excluded from analysis.
We processed these tweets to create indicator variables to measure substance-related mentions (e.g., alcohol, smoking, and recreational/illicit drug use) and underage substance use. We also estimated the sentiment (happy vs not happy) of each tweet. This step allowed us to further analyze whether a substance-related tweet had a positive sentiment or not. We implemented computer algorithms to process and track components of tweets, disregarding grammar and word order. Below we further describe our methods for creating sentiment scores, substance use variables, and underage variables.
The first step in our process was to perform tokenization on all tweets to divide text into a sequence of tokens. A token may be words or characters such as a smiley face “:)” or other character strings. Specifically, we used PTBTokenizer to accomplish the task. PTBTokenizer can efficiently tokenizes at a rate of approximately 1 million tokens per second on a laptop computer . We then matched the tokens with a list of substance keywords and underage keywords that we developed. Positive matches from this step were retrieved and included in our dataset for further processing. We implemented a machine learning Maximum Entropy Text classifier (mallet) to obtain a sentiment score for each tweet. Sentiment score ranged from 0 (sad) to 1 (happy). We classified tweets with an average mallet score equal to or greater than 0.8 as positive sentiment tweets (i.e., happy) and others as neutral/negative (i.e., sad) sentiment tweets.
Alcohol, smoking, and drug-related tweets.
A list of 143 substance items and related phrases was developed. This list included tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, commonly abused illicit substances, common substance use phrases, and associated slang / street names compiled from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health [24,25]. Each item on the list was composed of one or two-words or phrases. Some items had an asterisk appended to them (“*”). An asterisk indicates the word may end with any possible spelling. For instance, “smoke* weed” captured tweets containing “smoking weed,” “smoked weed,” “smokes weed,” and “smoke weed.” Controlled substances such as marijuana and peyote were also included on this list. For each term or phrase, we tracked whether it indicated (1) alcohol (e.g., beer, vodka), (2) tobacco (e.g., cigars, e-cigarettes), or (3) drug (e.g., marijuana, cocaine) use. We did not distinguish between medical and recreational use.
To analyze substance mentions, each tweet was examined for words and phrases matching at least one substance item from the substance list. Our algorithm performed a two-step process for extracting substance use mentions. For each tweet, Step 1 was to search for matching two-word substances or phrases (e.g., magic mushroom, smoking pot). Step 2 was to search for one-word substances (e.g., LSD, cocaine) in the remaining words in the tweet.
A list of 11 terms commonly associated with adolescents and young adults (hereafter refers as the “underage list”) was developed. For instance, "prom" is a term commonly associated with high school students. Another example is "homecoming dance," which is a dance commonly held at high schools and universities. Since the legal age for drinking and recreational marijuana use in the United States is 21, the underage list included terms associated with both adolescents and college freshmen and sophomores. While any match with items from this list does not necessarily indicate underage use, it provides a general picture of Twitter chat about substances around those under the age of 21. Specifically, the algorithm looked for any combination of words or phrases from the underage list and the substance list. For example, any match of a word or phrase from the underage list with an alcoholic beverage (e.g., beer) is considered a tweet that is both underage and drinking related, though it does not necessarily indicate underage drinking (e.g., “why do I look drunk in all my prom pictures” vs “getting drunk the night before prom”). An underage substance use tweet may indicate that the substance tweet was sent by or about someone under the age of 21.
Quality control procedure
A quality control procedure was implemented to examine agreement rates between computer algorithm labeling and manual labeling in describing substance-related tweets. We then improved the accuracy of detecting substance-related tweets by filtering out irrelevant keywords and adding in keywords that previously had been missed.
Specifically, four random subsets of substance tweets were used to test agreement between computer and human labeling of Twitter mentions of (1) alcohol use, (2) drug use, (3) smoking, and (4) underage substance use. Additionally, we performed manual labeling for a random subset (n = 500) of all tweets collected thus far to test for inclusiveness of the substance list. Two of the co-authors manually reviewed a total of 2800 tweets: 1000 alcohol tweets, 500 drug tweets, 500 smoking tweets, 300 underage tweets, and 500 random tweets from the master dataset of all tweets. Inter-rater agreement was above 90% for all tweet subgroups. Manual labeling of these tweets yielded the following agreement rates between computer–generated labels and manually-generated labels: 88%, 86%, 75%, and 97% for alcohol, substance, smoking and underage tweets.
We grouped tweets with their associated zip code by utilizing the geo-coordinates (i.e., longitude and latitude) of where tweets were sent. We created zip code level summaries of substance use patterns according to the Twitter data. We then merged our social media dataset with the 2013 Zip Code Business Patterns from the US Census Bureau. We also merged in 2010 US Census population characteristics at the zip code level. To ease interpretation, variables were standardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1—with the exception of median household income, which was divided into four quartiles: income equal to or less than $47082 per year (first quartile), $47083–58401 (second quartile), $58401–73281 (third quartile), and income greater than or equal to $73281 (fourth quartile). We created indicators of income quartile to investigate whether low income and high income were both associated with increased substance use mentions. We used linear regression models to examine the associations between our Twitter-derived indicators for substance use and socioeconomic characteristics at the zip code level. Popular terms associated with alcohol, tobacco, substances, and underage tweets were identified. All statistics were performed in STATA®/MP 13 software.
Utilizing the substance lists as filters, a total of 687,495 substance-related tweets were detected from the master dataset of 80 million tweets. The substance dataset is heavily dominated by alcohol tweets (n = 638,347), followed by drug tweets (n = 36,284) and smoking tweets (n = 14,256). Our underage list retrieved 509 matching tweets. A match indicates that the substance tweet was tweeted by or about someone under the age of 21.
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of our dataset. Again, the most commonly tweeted items across all substance related tweets were alcohol-themed. When separated into detailed groups (alcohol, smoking, and drug), fewer than 10 key terms made up the majority of the tweets for each group. The top alcohol tweets included the following terms: “beer”, “drunk,” and “cocktail.” “Beer” and “drunk” alone represented 57% of all alcohol tweets (Table 2). Top smoking tweets included the terms “cigars” and “beer” (Table 2). It should be noted a tweet could have multiple substance keywords. For instance, someone could have mentioned beer and smoking hookah in one tweet. Among drug tweets, the top five terms were “get high,” “smok* weed,” “stoner,” “cocaine,” and “heroin.” The top 21 key terms that represent 90% of all substance-related tweets are presented in Table 2.
The majority of underage tweets were about alcohol. Table 3 lists the top 19 items that accounted for 90% of underage tweets. Popular terms included “beer,” “booze,” “cocaine,” “get drunk,” “prom + weed,” and “vodka.”
Table 4 reports adjusted linear regression results in which zip code business and demographic characteristics served as predictors of percentages of tweets about 1) alcohol, 2) smoking, 3) drugs, and 4) underage engagement. More businesses in a zip code were related to lower percentages of alcohol and drug tweets. More full-service restaurants and convenience stores were associated with higher percentages of tweets about alcohol. Urbanicity was associated with fewer alcohol and drug tweets. Greater population size was associated with fewer tweets about all substances and underage engagement. A higher percentage of the zip code population who are 10–24 years of age was associated with fewer alcohol and drug tweets but more underage engagement tweets. More men in a zip code were associated with more alcohol and smoking tweets. Higher percentages of African Americans and Hispanics were associated with fewer substance-related tweets and fewer underage engagement tweets. A higher unemployment rate was associated with fewer alcohol tweets but more drug tweets. Similarly, lower median family income was associated with fewer alcohol tweets but more drug tweets (Table 4).
The distribution of substance-related tweets is shown in Table 5. Each entry denotes the proportion of tweets for the column (alcohol, smoking, drug) in a month. For instance, 20.1% of all alcohol-related tweets were captured in April. Of all alcohol, smoking, and drug-related tweets captured between April 2015 and March 2016, the largest proportion of tweets occurred in April. The second largest proportion of smoking-related content occurred in July, while May captured the second highest record for alcohol and drug-related tweets. March had the fewest alcohol, smoking, and drug-related tweets, and the frequency (not presented) of mentions was at its lowest in the 12-months period.
S1 Table shows the percent of substance-related tweets that were “happy” in each state. When tweeting about alcohol, smoking, and drug-related content, the following states had the largest percentages of happy tweets for each category, respectively: Connecticut (48%), Nebraska (54%), and South Dakota (35%). Overall, the percent of happy tweets ranged from 27% to 48% for alcohol, 9% to 54% for smoking, and 7% to 35% for drug use. Additionally, the northeastern region of the United States had higher percentages of happy tweets relating to alcohol (Fig 1). Maps displaying the national distribution of smoking and drug-related happy tweets are presented in S1 and S2 Figs.
In this study, we examined patterns in publically shared substance mentions on Twitter by analyzing a 1% random sample of tweets collected over a 1 year period at the national level. Across all substance tweets, alcohol was the most commonly tweeted theme. The most widely used terms included “beer,” followed by “drunk” and “cocktail,” which is consistent with the findings by Cavazos-Rehg and colleagues . Additionally, a significant portion of smoking tweets also mentioned beer (Table 2). This finding indicates a large proportion of individuals tweeted about smoking and alcohol simultaneously. In our study, we observed a high percentage of substance-related tweets were happy (34%), which is higher than the previously reported percentages of happy tweets about food and physical activity .
Nearly 9 of every 1000 tweets were alcohol-related. This finding is slightly higher than a previous finding in 2014 that 1 in every 1250 tweets were drinking-related . One plausible explanation is that social media use and smartphone use (which enables geotagging of tweets) have increased steadily over the years. For instance, reports from Pew Research Center suggest smartphone access for teens ages 12–17 have increased from 37% in 2012 to 73% in 2015 [27,28].
Most of the underage substance use tweets from this study were alcohol-themed, followed by marijuana use. With the legalization of recreational use of marijuana, marijuana tweets unsurprisingly ranked the highest in drug-related tweets (Table 2). However, legalization of recreational use increases ease of access, which can have negative impacts on adolescents and increase drug dependency and abuse. Online discussions also have the potential to glorify and promote substance use [14,29]. For instance, some individuals may be more interested to engage in risky activities after seeing such activities being promoted by friends or people they follow. Through Twitter features such as retweet (i.e., reposting the tweet) and favorite (i.e., liking a tweet), the reach of a tweet can be widespread.
Our data also showed substance-related tweets were associated with business and demographic characteristics of zip codes. For instance, areas with higher concentration of convenience stores were associated with higher percentages of tweets about alcohol. This suggests a potential increased use of alcohol for people who reside or spend more time in an area with higher density of convenience stores. This is demonstrated in one study where increased risk of underage drinking was related to the availability of convenience stores near a school . However, in another study that examined alcohol access with diverse adolescent population, commercial sources including convenience stores were not primary sources for youths to access alcohol . Furthermore, our finding regarding convenience stores differs from a study with African American drinkers. In that study, convenience stores density was not associated with increased risk of alcohol consumption . Such mixed literature findings may be attributed to differences in convenience store shoppers’ preferences and cultural habits across various subpopulations and locations.
Additionally, greater population size was significantly associated with fewer mentions about substance use and underage engagement. On alcohol and drug use, our finding is somewhat consistent with an earlier study by Parker, Weaver, and Caihoun  wherein residence in a non-metropolitan area influenced alcohol consumption for Hispanic participants but not for the White participants. The same study also found residence in an area with population exceeding 1 million was a significant predictor for drug use among the White participants. Another study with a national sample found more reports of nonmedical use of prescription opioids among residents of rural counties than their counterparts in urban counties . Regarding underage engagement with substance use, our finding aligns with several previous studies wherein adolescent substance use including nonmedical use of prescription drugs was more prevalent in rural than urban areas [35,36]. For instance, one study found 8th graders who lived in rural areas were 83% more likely to have used cocaine than their peers who lived in urban areas . Greggo, Jones, and Kann  also found high school students in rural areas were more likely to have reported driving after drinking than students in urban areas. One possible explanation for higher prevalence of risky behaviors in areas with lower population density may be that social norms may spread easier in environments with higher social cohesion. Permissive social norms may also contribute to engagement of undesirable health behavior in areas with higher level of collective efficacy . Finally, residents in rural areas may be more susceptible to social stigma which contributes to less utilization of mental health services . Although literature is mixed on whether smaller population size leads to greater or less substance use, studies have demonstrated substance use can be observed anywhere regardless of an area’s urbanicity or population size [35,37,40]. People in smaller towns can engage in risky behaviors, or have discussions about substances and illicit drug uses online, just as others can in bigger cities.
Our data also showed areas with higher percentages of African Americans and Hispanics were associated with fewer mentions about substance use and underage engagement. This finding aligns with the results of one study where African and Hispanic American high school students had lower rates of binge drinking . One plausible explanation is that traditional cultural norms with protective factors such as strong family ties and conservative cultural values may act as a buffer to lessen engagements with substance use. Previous research has suggested that ethnic identity may be a protective factor against substance use and risky behaviors [42,43].
It is also notable that economic disadvantage was associated with fewer alcohol tweets but more drug tweets. Previous research has identified a relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and increased drug use, that is partially mediated by social stressors and higher psychological distress among residents . Alternatively, the literature on neighborhood disadvantage and alcohol use is mixed, with some studies finding null relationships [45,46] and other studies finding increased alcohol consumption with neighborhood disadvantage [47,48]. The pattern of drinking may vary by socioeconomic status. People of higher socioeconomic status and those living in more affluent areas may be more likely to use alcohol than their lower socioeconomic status counterparts . Heavy episodic drinking may be more prevalent in economically disadvantaged areas . However, effects of neighborhood characteristics may be modified by racial/ethnic status and gender of individuals. A previous study found neighborhood disadvantage was related to more negative consequences of drinking with indirect pathways through increased heavy drinking and pro-drinking attitudes, but only among racial/ethnic minority men. Also among minority men, immigrant composition of neighborhoods was related to fewer alcohol problems. Neighborhood disadvantage was not related to alcohol consumption or alcohol problems among white men, white women or minority women .
Strengths and limitations
In this study, we leveraged social media data to examine current trends and patterns of substance use. Our results contribute to a growing literature utilizing social media as well as machine learning methods to examine health topics and monitor trends [51–55]. Our national data collection spanned one year which allowed us to capture tweets that were holiday-related and took into account different time periods involving high and low tweet traffic (e.g., summer break, Thanksgiving). The one year collection allowed us to capture and analyze over 688,000 substance related tweets through collaboration between fields of health promotion, computer science, and geography. Promising agreement rates between our algorithm-labeled and manual-labeled tweets also strengthen our findings. Additionally, the tweets we examined are publicly available and thus, can influence a wide audience. Furthermore, social modeling via social media may be an important emerging way in which adolescents and young adults obtain information about substances and social media may help to normalize substance use behaviors.
This study is subject to several limitations. All data collected thus far are from a 1% sample of publically available Twitter data. Our substance list only captured a small sample of tobacco tweets. While it may be that users simply tweeted more about alcohol and other substances, this may also indicate a need to further refine the substance list. Similarly, the underrepresentation of underage tweets may be due to a need to further expand the list of keywords. It should be noted that the geo-coordinates associated with a tweet pertain to where the tweet was sent rather than the location of a person’s residence. Thus, summaries of the social environment for a given area utilized tweets sent by individuals who were present at the location, and can be a mixture of visitors and residents. However, because tweets analyzed composed a random sample, the algorithm is naturally weighted towards people who spend more time in an area. Additionally, the underage list was created with the intention to capture tweets with words or phrases associated with underage substance use. However, the list did include terms that may apply to those over the age of 21 (i.e., college juniors and seniors as well as graduate students may also attend “homecoming dance”). Finally, we cannot conclude that a high frequency of substance use mentions necessarily indicates a high use of substances or confirm the intention to use them.
The amount of publically sharing of alcohol and substance-related messages is alarmingly high. Moreover, we find that substance-related tweets occurred more in areas with smaller population sizes and fewer racial/ethnic minorities. Additionally, publically available tweets have the potential to normalize illicit drug use and risky behaviors as tweets reach a wide range of audiences [14,29]. On top of the potential to endorse risky behaviors such as underage drinking and drug abuse, Twitter and other social networking sites may have the potential to encourage initiation into substance use. Substance-related discussions may act like an invitation for individuals to engage in risky behaviors, especially adolescents who are particularly influenced by friendship norms. Social influence is central to substance abuse and underage drinking. Health educators and health promotion specialists may take the rise of social media as an opportunity to develop interactive online campaigns to prevent the potential for normalization of risky behaviors.
S1 Fig. Percent of smoking-related tweets that are happy, by state.
S2 Fig. Percent of drug-related tweets that are happy, by state.
S1 Table. Percent of substance-related tweets that are happy, by state.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s Big Data to Knowledge Initiative (BD2K) grants 5K01ES025433; 3K01ES025433-03S1 (Dr. Nguyen, PI). Partial funding for open access provided by the UMD Libraries' Open Access Publishing Fund. The authors want to thank Matthew McCullough for the creation of figures for this study.
(2015) Social Media Usage: 2005–2015 Pew Research Center.
- 2. Hanson CL, Cannon B, Burton S, Giraud-Carrier C (2013) An Exploration of Social Circles and Prescription Drug Abuse Through Twitter. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15: e189. pmid:24014109
- 3. Wilson C, Sala A, Puttaswamy KPN, Zhao BY (2012) Beyond Social Graphs: User Interactions in Online Social Networks and their Implications. ACM Trans Web 6: 1–31.
- 4. Fan R, Zhao J, Chen Y, Xu K (2014) Anger Is More Influential than Joy: Sentiment Correlation in Weibo. PLoS ONE 9: e110184. pmid:25333778
- 5. Young SD, Rivers C, Lewis B (2014) Methods of using real-time social media technologies for detection and remote monitoring of HIV outcomes. Preventive Medicine 63: 112–115. pmid:24513169
- 6. Chew C, Eysenbach G (2010) Pandemics in the Age of Twitter: Content Analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 Outbreak. PLoS ONE 5: e14118. pmid:21124761
- 7. Nagar R, Yuan Q, Freifeld CC, Santillana M, Nojima A, et al. (2014) A Case Study of the New York City 2012–2013 Influenza Season With Daily Geocoded Twitter Data From Temporal and Spatiotemporal Perspectives. Journal of Medical Internet Research 16: e236. pmid:25331122
- 8. Cavazos-Rehg PA, Krauss M, Fisher SL, Salyer P, Grucza RA, et al. (2015) Twitter Chatter About Marijuana. Journal of Adolescent Health 56: 139–145. pmid:25620299
- 9. Krauss MJ, Sowles SJ, Moreno M, Zewdie K, Grucza RA, et al. (2015) Hookah-Related Twitter Chatter: A Content Analysis. Preventing Chronic Disease 12: E121. pmid:26226068
- 10. Chan B, Lopez A, Sarkar U (2015) The Canary in the Coal Mine Tweets: Social Media Reveals Public Perceptions of Non-Medical Use of Opioids. PLoS ONE 10: e0135072. pmid:26252774
- 11. Cody EM, Reagan AJ, Mitchell L, Dodds PS, Danforth CM (2015) Climate Change Sentiment on Twitter: An Unsolicited Public Opinion Poll. PLoS ONE 10: e0136092. pmid:26291877
- 12. Myslín M, Zhu S-H, Chapman W, Conway M (2013) Using Twitter to Examine Smoking Behavior and Perceptions of Emerging Tobacco Products. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15: e174. pmid:23989137
- 13. Naimi TS, Brewer RD, Mokdad A, Denny C, Serdula MK, et al. (2003) BInge drinking among us adults. JAMA 289: 70–75. pmid:12503979
- 14. Cavazos-Rehg PA, Krauss MJ, Sowles SJ, Bierut LJ (2015) “Hey Everyone, I’m Drunk.” An Evaluation of Drinking-Related Twitter Chatter. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 76: 635–643. pmid:26098041
- 15. Stoddard SA, Bauermeister JA, Gordon-Messer D, Johns M, Zimmerman MA (2012) Permissive Norms and Young Adults’ Alcohol and Marijuana Use: The Role of Online Communities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 73: 968–975. pmid:23036215
- 16. Curtis LH, Hammill BG, Eisenstein EL, Kramer JM, Anstrom KJ (2007) Using Inverse Probability-Weighted Estimators in Comparative Effectiveness Analyses With Observational Databases. Medical Care 45: S103–S107. pmid:17909367
- 17. Verkooijen KT, de Vries NK, Nielsen GA (2007) Youth crowds and substance use: The impact of perceived group norm and multiple group identification. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 21: 55–61. pmid:17385955
- 18. Wu L-T, Swartz MS, Brady KT, Hoyle RH (2015) Perceived cannabis use norms and cannabis use among adolescents in the United States. Journal of Psychiatric Research 64: 79–87. pmid:25795093
- 19. Tucker JS, Ewing BA, Miles JNV, Shih RA, Pedersen ER, et al. (2015) Predictors and consequences of prescription drug misuse during middle school. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 156: 254–260. pmid:26455553
- 20. Valente TW, Fujimoto K, Soto D, Ritt-Olson A, Unger JB (2013) A Comparison of Peer Influence Measures as Predictors of Smoking Among Predominately Hispanic/Latino High School Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 52: 358–364. pmid:23299016
- 21. Cook S, Bauermeister J, Gordon-Messer D, Zimmerman M (2013) Online Network Influences on Emerging Adults' Alcohol and Drug Use. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 42: 1674–1686.
- 22. Ajzen I (1991) Theories of Cognitive Self-RegulationThe theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.
- 23. Simpson GA, Fowler MG (1994) Geographic Mobility and Children's Emotional/Behavioral Adjustment and School Functioning. Pediatrics 93: 303–309. pmid:8121745
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Quality CfBHSa (2015) National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2013. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) [distributor].
(2016) Commonly Abused Drug Charts. National Institute on Drug Abuse.
- 26. Nguyen QC, Li D, Meng H-W, Kath S, Nsoesie EO, et al. (2016) Building a National Neighborhood Dataset From Geotagged Twitter Data for Indicators of Happiness, Diet, and Physical Activity. JMIR Public Health Surveillance 2: e158. pmid:27751984
Madden M, Lenhart A, Duggan M, Cortesi S, Gasser U (March, 2013) Teens and Technology 2013. Pew Research Center.
Lenhart A (April, 2015) Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015. Pew Research Center.
- 29. Moreno MA, Whitehill JM (2014) Influence of Social Media on Alcohol Use in Adolescents and Young Adults. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews 36: 91–100.
- 30. Wang SH, Lin I-C, Chen CY, Chen DR, Chan TC, et al. (2013) Availability of convenience stores and adolescent alcohol use in Taiwan: a multi‐level analysis of national surveys. Addiction 108: 2081–2088. pmid:23773461
- 31. Hearst MO, Fulkerson JA, Maldonado-Molina MM, Perry CL, Komro KA (2007) Who needs liquor stores when parents will do? The importance of social sources of alcohol among young urban teens. Preventive medicine 44: 471–476. pmid:17428525
- 32. Theall KP, Lancaster BP, Lynch S, Haines RT, Scribner S, et al. (2011) The neighborhood alcohol environment and at‐risk drinking among African‐Americans. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 35: 996–1003.
- 33. Parker KD, Weaver G, Calhoun T (1995) Predictors of alcohol and drug use: A multi-ethnic comparison. The Journal of social psychology 135: 581–590.
- 34. Wang KH, Becker WC, Fiellin DA (2013) Prevalence and correlates for nonmedical use of prescription opioids among urban and rural residents. Drug and alcohol dependence 127: 156–162. pmid:22819293
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2000) No Place to Hide: Substance Abuse in Mid-size Cities and Rural America. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
- 36. Havens JR, Young AM, Havens CE (2011) Nonmedical prescription drug use in a nationally representative sample of adolescents: Evidence of greater use among rural adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 165: 250–255.
- 37. Greggo J, Jones SE, Kann L (2005) Population density and alcohol-related risk behaviors among US high school students. Journal of Health Education 36: 148–154.
- 38. Ahern J, Galea S, Hubbard A, Syme SL (2009) Neighborhood smoking norms modify the relation between collective efficacy and smoking behavior. Drug and alcohol dependence 100: 138–145. pmid:19010610
- 39. Fox JC, Blank M, Berman J, Rovnyak VG (1999) Mental disorders and help seeking in a rural impoverished population. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 29: 181–195. pmid:10587814
- 40. McDermott MJ, Drescher CF, Smitherman TA, Tull MT, Heiden L, et al. (2013) Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of lifetime substance use among a rural and diverse sample of adolescents. Substance abuse 34: 371–380. pmid:24159908
- 41. Miller JW, Naimi TS, Brewer RD, Jones SE (2007) Binge drinking and associated health risk behaviors among high school students. Pediatrics 119: 76–85. pmid:17200273
- 42. Brook JS, Balka EB, Brook DW, Win PT, Gursen MD (1998) Drug use among African Americans: Ethnic identity as a protective factor. Psychological reports 83: 1427–1446. pmid:10079736
- 43. Love AS, Yin Z, Codina E, Zapata JT (2006) Ethnic identity and risky health behaviors in school-age Mexican-American children. Psychological reports 98: 735–744. pmid:16933671
- 44. Boardman JD, Finch BK, Ellison CG, Williams DR, Jackson JS (2001) Neighborhood disadvantage, stress, and drug use among adults. Journal of health and social behavior: 151–165. pmid:11467250
- 45. Brenner AB, Bauermeister JA, Zimmerman MA (2011) Neighborhood variation in adolescent alcohol use: Examination of socioecological and social disorganization theories. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs 72: 651–659. pmid:21683047
- 46. Curry SJ, Wagner EH, Cheadle A, Diehr P, Koepsell T, et al. (1993) Assessment of community-level influences on individuals' attitudes about cigarette smoking, alcohol use, and consumption of dietary fat. American journal of preventive medicine 9: 78–84. pmid:8471274
- 47. Cerdá M, Diez-Roux AV, Tchetgen ET, Gordon-Larsen P, Kiefe C (2010) The relationship between neighborhood poverty and alcohol use: estimation by marginal structural models. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass) 21: 482.
- 48. Rhew IC, Kosterman R, Lee JO (2017) Neighborhood Typologies Associated with Alcohol Use among Adults in Their 30s: a Finite Mixture Modeling Approach. Journal of Urban Health 94: 542–548. pmid:28484960
- 49. Karriker-Jaffe KJ, Zemore SE, Mulia N, Jones-Webb R, Bond J, et al. (2012) Neighborhood disadvantage and adult alcohol outcomes: differential risk by race and gender. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 73: 865–873. pmid:23036203
- 50. Karriker-Jaffe KJ, Liu H, Kaplan LM (2016) Understanding associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and negative consequences of drinking: a moderated mediation analysis. Prevention science 17: 513–524. pmid:26898509
- 51. Lee LJ, DeCamp M, Dredze M, Chisolm SM, Berger DZ (2014) What Are Health-Related Users Tweeting? A Qualitative Content Analysis of Health-Related Users and Their Messages on Twitter. J Med Internet Res 16: e237. pmid:25591063
- 52. Paul MJ, Dredze M (2014) Discovering Health Topics in Social Media Using Topic Models. PLOS ONE 9: e103408. pmid:25084530
De Choudhury M, Gamon M, Counts S, Horvitz E. Predicting Depression via Social Media; 2013. pp. 2.
- 54. Shah DV, Cappella JN, Neuman WR, Hindman M (2015) Building Better Models. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659: 48–62.
- 55. Shah DV, Cappella JN, Neuman WR, Schwartz HA, Ungar LH (2015) Data-Driven Content Analysis of Social Media. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 659: 78–94.