INTRODUCTION: Our main objective was to estimate smoking prevalence as well as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of self-reported smoking among pregnant women in Edmonton, Canada, at 15-16 weeks of gestation. METHODS: We used serum samples to assemble a cohort of pregnant women who underwent an optional second-trimester screening for chromosomal and developmental anomalies. We determined cotinine concentrations for 92 self-reported smokers (11% of the cohort) and for 285 self-reported nonsmoking mothers, using adapted urinary cotinine assay. Self-reports were collected at the time of delivery. In a validation study, serum cotinine was determined for known smokers and nonsmokers and used, within a Bayesian statistical framework, to define the distribution of cutoffs that differentiate true smokers from nonsmokers. This distribution of cutoffs was used to construct multiple two-by-two tables to obtain the distribution of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and prevalence. RESULTS: Sensitivity was poor (M = 47.4%, SD = 17.3%), but specificity was nearly perfect (M = 94.9%, SD = 1.1%). PPV (M = 66.6%, SD = 11.7%) was smaller than NPV (M = 84.7%, SD = 14.3%). In our sample, the prevalence of true smoking at 15-16 weeks of gestation was described by a skewed distribution with a mean of 21.6% (SD = 13.8%) and a median of 16.6%. DISCUSSION: The strength of the present study includes blinding of subjects to the intention to test their sera for a biomarker of smoking. A limitation was the use of a nonrandom sample restricted to pregnancies that resulted in live births. We discuss data collection methods that would elicit more accurate smoking histories from pregnant women.
INTRODUCTION: Our main objective was to estimate smoking prevalence as well as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of self-reported smoking among pregnant women in Edmonton, Canada, at 15-16 weeks of gestation. METHODS: We used serum samples to assemble a cohort of pregnant women who underwent an optional second-trimester screening for chromosomal and developmental anomalies. We determined cotinine concentrations for 92 self-reported smokers (11% of the cohort) and for 285 self-reported nonsmoking mothers, using adapted urinary cotinine assay. Self-reports were collected at the time of delivery. In a validation study, serum cotinine was determined for known smokers and nonsmokers and used, within a Bayesian statistical framework, to define the distribution of cutoffs that differentiate true smokers from nonsmokers. This distribution of cutoffs was used to construct multiple two-by-two tables to obtain the distribution of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and prevalence. RESULTS: Sensitivity was poor (M = 47.4%, SD = 17.3%), but specificity was nearly perfect (M = 94.9%, SD = 1.1%). PPV (M = 66.6%, SD = 11.7%) was smaller than NPV (M = 84.7%, SD = 14.3%). In our sample, the prevalence of true smoking at 15-16 weeks of gestation was described by a skewed distribution with a mean of 21.6% (SD = 13.8%) and a median of 16.6%. DISCUSSION: The strength of the present study includes blinding of subjects to the intention to test their sera for a biomarker of smoking. A limitation was the use of a nonrandom sample restricted to pregnancies that resulted in live births. We discuss data collection methods that would elicit more accurate smoking histories from pregnant women.
Authors: Sarah Moody-Thomas; Laura Nasuti; Yong Yi; Michael D Celestin; Ronald Horswell; Thomas G Land Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sara L Kornfield; Marian Moseley; Dina Appleby; Courtney L McMickens; Mary D Sammel; C Neill Epperson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Margaret S Chisolm; Heather Fitzsimons; Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos; Shauna P Acquavita; Sarah H Heil; Molly Wilson-Murphy; Michelle Tuten; Karol Kaltenbach; Peter R Martin; Bernadette Winklbaur; Lauren M Jansson; Hendrée E Jones Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Liv G Kvalvik; Roy M Nilsen; Rolv Skjærven; Stein Emil Vollset; Oivind Midttun; Per Magne Ueland; Kjell Haug Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 3.756