OBJECTIVES: This study compared serum cotinine and thiocyanate in assessment of self-reported smoking behavior among 1400 men and 1809 women from two New England communities. METHODS: Serum thiocyanate and serum cotinine levels were analyzed on 2411 and 798 survey respondents, respectively, in an attempt to provide an objective measurement for validation of self-reported smoking behaviors that were obtained through an in-home interviewer-administered questionnaire. Cross-sectional household surveys were conducted with randomly selected men and women, aged 18-65, between 1981 and 1993 as part of the evaluation of the Pawtucket Heart Health Program. RESULTS: Among smokers, the thiocyanate test had similar rates of agreement for women(88.0%) and for men (89.3%). However, among nonsmokers, thiocyanate had higher rates of agreement for women (91.5%) than for men (85.2%). For cotinine, the rates of agreement among smokers were higher for women (91.6%) than for men (89.7%). Similarly, the rates of agreement among nonsmokers were also higher for women (93.9%) than for men (91.9%). Overall,serum cotinine had a higher concordance rate than serum thiocyanate for both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Although our results suggested that there were some differences in self-reporting of smoking status by gender, results were quite similar between self-reports of smoking and both biochemical tests. The results obtained from this large population-based study from two New England communities lend credibility to the use of self-reports as a low-cost accurate approach to obtaining information on smoking behaviors among both men and women in large population-based health surveys.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared serum cotinine and thiocyanate in assessment of self-reported smoking behavior among 1400 men and 1809 women from two New England communities. METHODS: Serum thiocyanate and serum cotinine levels were analyzed on 2411 and 798 survey respondents, respectively, in an attempt to provide an objective measurement for validation of self-reported smoking behaviors that were obtained through an in-home interviewer-administered questionnaire. Cross-sectional household surveys were conducted with randomly selected men and women, aged 18-65, between 1981 and 1993 as part of the evaluation of the Pawtucket Heart Health Program. RESULTS: Among smokers, the thiocyanate test had similar rates of agreement for women(88.0%) and for men (89.3%). However, among nonsmokers, thiocyanate had higher rates of agreement for women (91.5%) than for men (85.2%). For cotinine, the rates of agreement among smokers were higher for women (91.6%) than for men (89.7%). Similarly, the rates of agreement among nonsmokers were also higher for women (93.9%) than for men (91.9%). Overall,serum cotinine had a higher concordance rate than serum thiocyanate for both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Although our results suggested that there were some differences in self-reporting of smoking status by gender, results were quite similar between self-reports of smoking and both biochemical tests. The results obtained from this large population-based study from two New England communities lend credibility to the use of self-reports as a low-cost accurate approach to obtaining information on smoking behaviors among both men and women in large population-based health surveys.
Authors: Elizabeth B Claus; Kyle M Walsh; Lisa Calvocoressi; Melissa L Bondy; Joellen M Schildkraut; Margaret Wrensch; Joseph L Wiemels Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Allshine Chen; Nicolle M Krebs; Junjia Zhu; Dongxiao Sun; Andrea Stennett; Joshua E Muscat Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Ashley S Felix; Hannah P Yang; Gretchen L Gierach; Yikyung Park; Louise A Brinton Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Neal D Freedman; Debra T Silverman; Albert R Hollenbeck; Arthur Schatzkin; Christian C Abnet Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Catalin Marian; Richard J O'Connor; Mirjana V Djordjevic; Vaughan W Rees; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Peter G Shields Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J E Heck; I Stücker; S Allwright; E R Gritz; M Haglund; C G Healton; E Kralikova; S Sanchez Del Mazo; E Tamang; C M Dresler; M Hashibe Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Nelson A Morales; Michelle A Romano; K Michael Cummings; James R Marshall; Andrew J Hyland; Alan Hutson; Graham W Warren Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Lisa J Ware; Karen Charlton; Ruan Kruger; Yolandi Breet; Johannes van Rooyen; Hugo Huisman; Shani Botha; Aletta S Uys; Kirsten L Rennie; Nirmala Naidoo; Paul Kowal; Aletta E Schutte Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.492