OBJECTIVES: Occupational health studies often rely on self-reported secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. This study examines the accuracy of self-reported tobacco use and SHS exposure. METHODS: Data on serum cotinine, self-reported tobacco use, and SHS exposure for US workers were extracted from three National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (n = 17,011). Serum cotinine levels were used to classify workers into SHS exposure categories. The percent agreement between self-reported tobacco use and SHS exposure with the cotinine categories was calculated. RESULTS: Workers reporting tobacco use were 88% accurate whereas workers reporting work, home, or home+work exposures were 87% to 92% accurate. Workers reporting no SHS exposure were only 28% accurate. CONCLUSIONS: Workers accurately reported their smoking status and workplace-home SHS exposures, but substantial numbers reporting "no exposures" had detectable levels of cotinine in their blood, indicating exposure to SHS.
OBJECTIVES: Occupational health studies often rely on self-reported secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. This study examines the accuracy of self-reported tobacco use and SHS exposure. METHODS: Data on serum cotinine, self-reported tobacco use, and SHS exposure for US workers were extracted from three National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (n = 17,011). Serum cotinine levels were used to classify workers into SHS exposure categories. The percent agreement between self-reported tobacco use and SHS exposure with the cotinine categories was calculated. RESULTS: Workers reporting tobacco use were 88% accurate whereas workers reporting work, home, or home+work exposures were 87% to 92% accurate. Workers reporting no SHS exposure were only 28% accurate. CONCLUSIONS: Workers accurately reported their smoking status and workplace-home SHS exposures, but substantial numbers reporting "no exposures" had detectable levels of cotinine in their blood, indicating exposure to SHS.
Authors: Brian A King; K Michael Cummings; Martin C Mahoney; Harlan R Juster; Andrew J Hyland Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Evelyn P Davila; David J Lee; Lora E Fleming; William G LeBlanc; Kristopher Arheart; Noella Dietz; John E Lewis; Kathryn McCollister; Alberto Caban-Martinez; Frank Bandiera Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Frank C Bandiera; Kristopher L Arheart; Alberto J Caban-Martinez; Lora E Fleming; Kathryn McCollister; Noella A Dietz; William G Leblanc; Evelyn P Davila; John E Lewis; Berrin Serdar; David J Lee Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Andreas M Neophytou; Sam S Oh; Marquitta J White; Angel C Y Mak; Donglei Hu; Scott Huntsman; Celeste Eng; Denise Serebrisky; Luisa N Borrell; Harold J Farber; Kelley Meade; Adam Davis; Pedro C Avila; Shannon M Thyne; William Rodríguez-Cintrón; José R Rodríguez-Santana; Rajesh Kumar; Emerita Brigino-Buenaventura; Saunak Sen; Michael A Lenoir; L Keoki Williams; Neal L Benowitz; John R Balmes; Ellen A Eisen; Esteban G Burchard Journal: Thorax Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Margaret R Spitz; Ivan P Gorlov; Christopher I Amos; Qiong Dong; Wei Chen; Carol J Etzel; Olga Y Gorlova; David W Chang; Xia Pu; Di Zhang; Liang Wang; Julie M Cunningham; Ping Yang; Xifeng Wu Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 39.397