Literature DB >> 20081040

ITC "spit and butts" pilot study: the feasibility of collecting saliva and cigarette butt samples from smokers to evaluate policy.

Brian V Fix1, Richard O'Connor, David Hammond, Bill King, Ann McNeill, James Thrasher, Marcelo Boado, K Michael Cummings, Hua-Hie Yong, Mary E Thompson, Andrew Hyland.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Large-scale epidemiological surveys have frequently relied upon clinic-based sample collection to incorporate biological data, which can be costly and result in nonrepresentative data. Collecting samples in a nonclinical setting (i.e., through postal mail or at the subject's home) offers an alternative option that is minimally invasive and can be incorporated into large population-based studies.
OBJECTIVES: (a) To assess the feasibility of collecting biological data from a cohort of smokers in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) study, through the mail and in the home; (b) to examine whether participants are representative of the population under consideration; and (c) to evaluate how the added burden of providing biomarker samples might impact subsequent participation in a follow-up survey.
METHODS: Participants were asked to provide a saliva sample and five cigarette butts from cigarettes smoked on a single day, using standardized procedures. Sample collection kits were mailed to a random sample of 400 daily cigarette smokers who were involved in the 2006 annual ITC Four Country (United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australia) telephone survey and agreed to participate in sample collection. A random sample of 179 daily smokers who participated in a face-to-face ITC survey in Mexico and Uruguay and agreed to participate in sample collection were also asked to provide samples.
RESULTS: Samples were collected from 96% of invited participants in the face-to-face surveys and 52% of participants in the telephone survey. The added burden of the sample collection did not reduce survey retention rates. Participants who initially agreed to participate in the sample collection were more likely to participate in the subsequent survey than participants who were not asked or declined to participate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.01-1.62, p = .021). Further, those who provided samples were also more likely to participate in the subsequent survey than those who did not (OR = 2.78; 95% CI = 1.71-4.52, p < .001). DISCUSSION: Collecting saliva and cigarette butt samples from a group of smokers is feasible, yields a representative sample, and the added participant burden does not reduce subsequent survey response rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20081040      PMCID: PMC2825096          DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntp191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res        ISSN: 1462-2203            Impact factor:   4.244


  8 in total

1.  Obtaining DNA from a geographically dispersed cohort of current and former smokers: use of mail-based mouthwash collection and monetary incentives.

Authors:  Joseph E Bauer; Hamed Rezaishiraz; Karen Head; John Cowell; Gerold Bepler; Miriam Aiken; K Michael Cummings; Andrew Hyland
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 2.  The conceptual framework of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project.

Authors:  G T Fong; K M Cummings; R Borland; G Hastings; A Hyland; G A Giovino; D Hammond; M E Thompson
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  A digital image analysis system for identifying filter vent blocking on ultralight cigarettes.

Authors:  Richard J O'Connor; Joseph P Stitt; Lynn T Kozlowski
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  What a drop can do: dried blood spots as a minimally invasive method for integrating biomarkers into population-based research.

Authors:  Thomas W McDade; Sharon Williams; J Josh Snodgrass
Journal:  Demography       Date:  2007-11

Review 5.  Collecting saliva samples by mail.

Authors:  J F Etter; T V Perneger; A Ronchi
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-01-15       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Using a telephone survey to acquire genetic and behavioral data related to cigarette smoking in "made-anonymous" and "registry" samples.

Authors:  Lynn T Kozlowski; George P Vogler; David J Vandenbergh; Andrew A Strasser; Richard J O'Connor; Berwood A Yost
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2002-07-01       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Digital image analysis of cigarette filter staining to estimate smoke exposure.

Authors:  Richard J O'Connor; Lynn T Kozlowski; David Hammond; Tammy T Vance; Joseph P Stitt; K Michael Cummings
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 8.  Biomarkers of environmental tobacco smoke exposure.

Authors:  N L Benowitz
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 9.031

  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  Differences in cigarette design and metal content across five countries: results from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Project.

Authors:  Rosalie V Caruso; Brian V Fix; James F Thrasher; K Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong; W E Stephens; Richard J O'Connor
Journal:  Tob Regul Sci       Date:  2016-04-01

2.  Level of cigarette consumption and quit behavior in a population of low-intensity smokers--longitudinal results from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) survey in Mexico.

Authors:  Kamala Swayampakala; James Thrasher; Matthew J Carpenter; Luz Myriam Reynales Shigematsu; Ana-Paula Cupertio; Carla J Berg
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 3.913

3.  PPD ACT: an app-based genetic study of postpartum depression.

Authors:  Jerry Guintivano; Holly Krohn; Carol Lewis; Enda M Byrne; Anjali K Henders; Alexander Ploner; Katherine Kirk; Nicholas G Martin; Jeannette Milgrom; Naomi R Wray; Patrick F Sullivan; Samantha Meltzer-Brody
Journal:  Transl Psychiatry       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 6.222

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.