Accuracy of self-reported smoking status among participants in a chemoprevention trial

Background. Exposure to tobacco products is readily assessed through self- or interview-administered questionnaires. Degree of misreporting among participants in chemoprevention trials is unknown. We assessed the level of discrepancy between self-reported smoking exposure and plasma cotinine among p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Preventive medicine Vol. 38; no. 4; pp. 492 - 497
Main Authors: Martı́nez, Marı́a Elena, Reid, Mary, Jiang, Ruiyun, Einspahr, Janine, Alberts, David S
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-04-2004
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background. Exposure to tobacco products is readily assessed through self- or interview-administered questionnaires. Degree of misreporting among participants in chemoprevention trials is unknown. We assessed the level of discrepancy between self-reported smoking exposure and plasma cotinine among participants in a chemoprevention trial. Methods. Analyses were conducted among 824 men and women who participated in a dietary trial of adenoma recurrence. Smoking exposure was ascertained through self-administered questionnaires at three time-points. Plasma cotinine was measured by gas chromatography among 283 never, 446 former and 95 current self-reported smokers. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed using various plasma cotinine cut-points. Results. Degree of misclassification for self-reported current smokers was minor (0–3%), regardless of cotinine cut-point used. Using a cut-point of 20 ng/ml, which takes into account exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among nonsmokers, sensitivity and specificity were 98.9% and 80.2%, respectively. Conclusions. These data indicate that degree of misreport for current smokers is extremely low; however, approximately 20% of self-reported never smokers misreport their exposure, suggesting that validation of self-report is needed for these individuals.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0091-7435
1096-0260
DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.12.006