Stephen P McDonald1, Graeme P Maguire, Wendy E Hoy. 1. Menzies School of Health Research, Northern Territory Clinical School, Flinders University of South Australia, Northern Territory. stephenm@anzdata.org.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between self-reported tobacco smoking and urinary cotinine concentrations in the setting of a remote Aboriginal community. METHODS: In a remote Northern Territory (NT) Aboriginal community the relationship between self-reported tobacco smoking and urinary cotinine concentrations was examined as part of a cross-sectional survey of cardiovascular risk factors. Current tobacco smoking was assessed as part of a questionnaire. The concentration of cotinine and cotinine/creatinine ratio (CCR) in a spot urine sample were used as a biochemical marker of nicotine exposure. RESULTS: A total of 237 people took part in the survey, although completed questionnaires and urine results were available for 184 people. Current tobacco smoking was reported by 161 (69 [95% CI 63 to 75]%) people, with higher rates among males (84/104, 81 [95% CI 72 to 88]%) than females (77/129, 60 [95% CI 51 to 68]%, p < 0.001). There was good agreement of self report with current tobacco smoking using categories based on urinary cotinine (agreement 94%, kappa = 0.84) and urinary CCR (agreement 94%, kappa = 0.86). Quantitative agreement between cotinine measures and self-reported number of cigarettes per day was better for CCR than cotinine, but the correlation was relatively weak for both. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported cigarette smoking is a valid qualitative measure in this environment. The relatively weak correlation between the biomarker and number of reported cigarettes smoked illustrates problems both with questionnaire and urinary markers of nicotine exposure. IMPLICATIONS: As a qualitative measure of tobacco smoking in this setting, self-report appears adequate but the validity of quantitative self-report is unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between self-reported tobacco smoking and urinary cotinine concentrations in the setting of a remote Aboriginal community. METHODS: In a remote Northern Territory (NT) Aboriginal community the relationship between self-reported tobacco smoking and urinary cotinine concentrations was examined as part of a cross-sectional survey of cardiovascular risk factors. Current tobacco smoking was assessed as part of a questionnaire. The concentration of cotinine and cotinine/creatinine ratio (CCR) in a spot urine sample were used as a biochemical marker of nicotine exposure. RESULTS: A total of 237 people took part in the survey, although completed questionnaires and urine results were available for 184 people. Current tobacco smoking was reported by 161 (69 [95% CI 63 to 75]%) people, with higher rates among males (84/104, 81 [95% CI 72 to 88]%) than females (77/129, 60 [95% CI 51 to 68]%, p < 0.001). There was good agreement of self report with current tobacco smoking using categories based on urinary cotinine (agreement 94%, kappa = 0.84) and urinary CCR (agreement 94%, kappa = 0.86). Quantitative agreement between cotinine measures and self-reported number of cigarettes per day was better for CCR than cotinine, but the correlation was relatively weak for both. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported cigarette smoking is a valid qualitative measure in this environment. The relatively weak correlation between the biomarker and number of reported cigarettes smoked illustrates problems both with questionnaire and urinary markers of nicotine exposure. IMPLICATIONS: As a qualitative measure of tobacco smoking in this setting, self-report appears adequate but the validity of quantitative self-report is unclear.
Authors: Mahmoud Al Rifai; Andrew P DeFilippis; John W McEvoy; Michael E Hall; Ana Navas Acien; Miranda R Jones; Rachel Keith; Hoda S Magid; Carlos J Rodriguez; Graham R Barr; Emelia J Benjamin; Rose Marie Robertson; Aruni Bhatnagar; Michael J Blaha Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: David J Maclaren; Katherine M Conigrave; Jan A Robertson; Rowena G Ivers; Sandra Eades; Alan R Clough Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2010-02-20
Authors: Christopher P Burgess; Ross S Bailie; Christine M Connors; Richard D Chenhall; Robyn A McDermott; Kerin O'Dea; Charlie Gunabarra; Hellen L Matthews; Adrian J Esterman Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Michelle DiGiacomo; Patricia M Davidson; Penelope A Abbott; Joyce Davison; Louise Moore; Sandra C Thompson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Julia V Marley; David Atkinson; Carmel Nelson; Tracey Kitaura; Dennis Gray; Sue Metcalf; Richard Murray; Graeme P Maguire Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Julia V Marley; David Atkinson; Tracey Kitaura; Carmel Nelson; Dennis Gray; Sue Metcalf; Graeme P Maguire Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sandra Campbell; India Bohanna; Anne Swinbourne; Yvonne Cadet-James; Dallas McKeown; Robyn McDermott Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 3.390