OBJECTIVE: This study examined the reliability and potential biases of two urine collection methods from which cotinine measures were obtained and the validity of memory-based parental reports of their children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). DESIGN: Structured interviews were conducted with mothers of infants and young children to obtain memory-based estimates of recent ETS exposure. Urine samples were collected through standard and cotton roll collection methods for cotinine analysis. SETTING: All interviews took place at an off-campus research facility. Urine samples were collected at the study office or the subjects' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Mothers were recruited from San Diego county sites of the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Supplemental Food and Nutrition Program. Sample 1 (infants) consisted of eight boys and eight girls aged 1-44 months (mean = 12.6 months). Sample 2 (children) included 10 boys and 10 girls aged 3-8 years (mean = 61.2 months). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Urine cotinine and memory-based parent reports of ETS exposure from structured interviews. RESULTS: There was overall high reliability for urine cotinine measures and no effect of collection method on urine cotinine levels. Memory-based reports obtained from smoking mothers showed moderately strong and consistent linear relationships with urine cotinine measures of their infants and children (r = 0.50 to r = 0.63), but not for reports obtained from non-smoking mothers. CONCLUSIONS: Memory-based parental reports of short-term ETS exposure can play an important role in quantifying ETS exposure in infants and children.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the reliability and potential biases of two urine collection methods from which cotinine measures were obtained and the validity of memory-based parental reports of their children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). DESIGN: Structured interviews were conducted with mothers of infants and young children to obtain memory-based estimates of recent ETS exposure. Urine samples were collected through standard and cotton roll collection methods for cotinine analysis. SETTING: All interviews took place at an off-campus research facility. Urine samples were collected at the study office or the subjects' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Mothers were recruited from San Diego county sites of the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Supplemental Food and Nutrition Program. Sample 1 (infants) consisted of eight boys and eight girls aged 1-44 months (mean = 12.6 months). Sample 2 (children) included 10 boys and 10 girls aged 3-8 years (mean = 61.2 months). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Urine cotinine and memory-based parent reports of ETS exposure from structured interviews. RESULTS: There was overall high reliability for urine cotinine measures and no effect of collection method on urine cotinine levels. Memory-based reports obtained from smoking mothers showed moderately strong and consistent linear relationships with urine cotinine measures of their infants and children (r = 0.50 to r = 0.63), but not for reports obtained from non-smoking mothers. CONCLUSIONS: Memory-based parental reports of short-term ETS exposure can play an important role in quantifying ETS exposure in infants and children.
Authors: J T Bernert; W E Turner; J L Pirkle; C S Sosnoff; J R Akins; M K Waldrep; Q Ann; T R Covey; W E Whitfield; E W Gunter; B B Miller; D G Patterson; L L Needham; W H Hannon; E J Sampson Journal: Clin Chem Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Constantine I Vardavas; Manolis N Tzatzarakis; Aristeidis M Tsatsakis; Dimitrios Athanasopoulos; Evaggelia Balomenaki; Manolis K Linardakis; Anthony G Kafatos Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2006-07-28 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Jill S Halterman; Maria Fagnano; Reynaldo S Tajon; Paul Tremblay; Hongyue Wang; Arlene Butz; Tamara T Perry; Kenneth M McConnochie Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Marilyn Johnson-Kozlow; Dennis R Wahlgren; Melbourne F Hovell; Danette M Flores; Sandy Liles; C Richard Hofstetter; Jennifer Zellner; Joy M Zakarian Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 6.437