A comparison of self-reported to cotinine-detected smoking status among adults in Georgia.
Journal
European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2020
01 10 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
27
6
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
entrez:
27
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Self-reported measures of tobacco use may have limited validity, particularly among some populations. This study aims to validate self-reported smoking measures among Georgian adults participating in the 2016 STEPS survey using cotinine biomarker measurements, and to explore potential differences according to sociodemographic characteristics. Additionally, this paper examines how the estimated prevalence of smoking in the population varies according to measurement type. Using the WHO standardized STEPS methodology, adults self-reported their smoking status. In a later stage of the survey, a subset of participants provided a urine sample, which was tested for cotinine. Using each participant's objective cotinine measurement and their self-reported smoking status, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of self-reported smoking. Next, we calculated the estimated prevalence of smokers according to the type of measurement. Results indicated high sensitivity (83.37%, 95% CI: 76.79-88.37%) among males and relatively low sensitivity (38.60% CI: 29.23-48.90%) among females. According to self-report, the prevalence of smokers was 26.44% (23.61-29.48%), while according to cotinine detection, the prevalence of smokers was 32.27% (29.16-35.55%). Among all subgroups, the self-reported prevalence of smoking was significantly lower than the cotinine-detected prevalence. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the validity of the STEPS self-reported tobacco indicator has been tested. Self-reported measures of smoking status may lead to an under-estimation of smoking prevalence among Georgian adults, especially women. These findings suggest that integration of biochemical measures of smoking into tobacco use studies may be an important investment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Self-reported measures of tobacco use may have limited validity, particularly among some populations. This study aims to validate self-reported smoking measures among Georgian adults participating in the 2016 STEPS survey using cotinine biomarker measurements, and to explore potential differences according to sociodemographic characteristics. Additionally, this paper examines how the estimated prevalence of smoking in the population varies according to measurement type.
METHODS
Using the WHO standardized STEPS methodology, adults self-reported their smoking status. In a later stage of the survey, a subset of participants provided a urine sample, which was tested for cotinine. Using each participant's objective cotinine measurement and their self-reported smoking status, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of self-reported smoking. Next, we calculated the estimated prevalence of smokers according to the type of measurement.
RESULTS
Results indicated high sensitivity (83.37%, 95% CI: 76.79-88.37%) among males and relatively low sensitivity (38.60% CI: 29.23-48.90%) among females. According to self-report, the prevalence of smokers was 26.44% (23.61-29.48%), while according to cotinine detection, the prevalence of smokers was 32.27% (29.16-35.55%). Among all subgroups, the self-reported prevalence of smoking was significantly lower than the cotinine-detected prevalence.
CONCLUSIONS
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the validity of the STEPS self-reported tobacco indicator has been tested. Self-reported measures of smoking status may lead to an under-estimation of smoking prevalence among Georgian adults, especially women. These findings suggest that integration of biochemical measures of smoking into tobacco use studies may be an important investment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32588045
pii: 5862907
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa093
pmc: PMC7536257
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cotinine
K5161X06LL
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1007-1012Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© World Health Organization 2020.
Références
Addiction. 2017 Dec;112(12):2227-2236
pubmed: 28834608
Health Educ Res. 2014 Feb;29(1):72-82
pubmed: 23861478
Nicotine Tob Res. 2003 Aug;5(4):473-83
pubmed: 12959785
Tob Control. 2008 Feb;17(1):25-31
pubmed: 18218803
BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 09;5(10):e007485
pubmed: 26453588
Biomarkers. 2003 May-Aug;8(3-4):218-28
pubmed: 12944174
Cult Health Sex. 2007 Sep-Oct;9(5):519-31
pubmed: 17687676
Health Rep. 2012 Mar;23(1):47-53
pubmed: 22590805
Am J Public Health. 1987 Nov;77(11):1435-8
pubmed: 3661797
Am J Public Health. 1983 Oct;73(10):1204-7
pubmed: 6614277
Am J Public Health. 1994 Jul;84(7):1086-93
pubmed: 8017530
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2003 Jul-Aug;9(4):322-5
pubmed: 12836515
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Apr 05;15(4):
pubmed: 29621167
Nicotine Tob Res. 2002 Aug;4(3):305-9
pubmed: 12215239
Health Psychol. 2011 Jan;30(1):49-57
pubmed: 21299294
Am J Public Health. 2016 Jan;106(1):74-8
pubmed: 26696288
J Prev Med Public Health. 2009 Jul;42(4):223-30
pubmed: 19675398
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Nov 21;11:153
pubmed: 22099396
Nicotine Tob Res. 2009 Jan;11(1):12-24
pubmed: 19246437
Nicotine Tob Res. 2002 May;4(2):149-59
pubmed: 12028847
Int J Behav Healthc Res. 2011 Oct;2(4):320-332
pubmed: 25383095
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012 Jan;95(1):162-8
pubmed: 22071432