Steven L Bernstein1,2,3, June Rosner1, Benjamin Toll2,4,5. 1. a Department of Emergency Medicine , Yale School of Medicine , New Haven , Connecticut , USA. 2. b Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine , New Haven , Connecticut , USA. 3. c Department of Health Policy , Yale School of Public Health , New Haven , Connecticut , USA. 4. d Department of Psychiatry , Yale School of Medicine , New Haven , Connecticut , USA. 5. e Medical University of South Carolina , Charleston , South Carolina , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation clinical trials assess tobacco abstinence using self-report and biomarkers. Optimum methods for each are unclear; a common question assesses smoking in the prior 7 days. In contrast, timeline follow-back (TLFB) is another technique often used to assess use of alcohol in treatment trials; it is used less frequently in studies of smoking cessation. The goal of this study was to assess concordance between the 7-day smoking question and a 7-day TLFB. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial of smoking cessation was conducted at a busy, urban hospital emergency department (ED) from October 2010 to December 2012. At 1, 3, and 12 months, subjects were contacted by phone to assess smoking status. Those reporting abstinence at 3 months were asked to return for an in-person measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide. For this analysis, smoking status at 1 month was compared for subjects in response to 2 questions asked concurrently, addressing 7-day point prevalence tobacco use and a 7-day TLFB. RESULTS:Of 780 subjects, 666 (85.4%) were available for 1-month follow-up. Of these, 99 (14.9%) reported no smoking in response to the 7-day question, and 96 (14.4%) reported no smoking in response to the 7-day TLFB. The overall proportionate agreement between the 2 methods was 98.6%, with a kappa of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: A single question that assesses smoking at 7 days provides excellent concordance with the more detailed TLFB. The single question appears adequate to assess self-reported tobacco use in clinical trials of smoking cessation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation clinical trials assess tobacco abstinence using self-report and biomarkers. Optimum methods for each are unclear; a common question assesses smoking in the prior 7 days. In contrast, timeline follow-back (TLFB) is another technique often used to assess use of alcohol in treatment trials; it is used less frequently in studies of smoking cessation. The goal of this study was to assess concordance between the 7-day smoking question and a 7-day TLFB. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial of smoking cessation was conducted at a busy, urban hospital emergency department (ED) from October 2010 to December 2012. At 1, 3, and 12 months, subjects were contacted by phone to assess smoking status. Those reporting abstinence at 3 months were asked to return for an in-person measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide. For this analysis, smoking status at 1 month was compared for subjects in response to 2 questions asked concurrently, addressing 7-day point prevalence tobacco use and a 7-day TLFB. RESULTS: Of 780 subjects, 666 (85.4%) were available for 1-month follow-up. Of these, 99 (14.9%) reported no smoking in response to the 7-day question, and 96 (14.4%) reported no smoking in response to the 7-day TLFB. The overall proportionate agreement between the 2 methods was 98.6%, with a kappa of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: A single question that assesses smoking at 7 days provides excellent concordance with the more detailed TLFB. The single question appears adequate to assess self-reported tobacco use in clinical trials of smoking cessation.
Authors: Thomas R Frieden; Farzad Mostashari; Bonnie D Kerker; Nancy Miller; Anjum Hajat; Martin Frankel Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Stephanie S O'Malley; Judith L Cooney; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Joel A Dubin; Sherry A McKee; Ned L Cooney; Amy Blakeslee; Boris Meandzija; Denise Romano-Dahlgard; Ran Wu; Robert Makuch; Peter Jatlow Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-27
Authors: Gail D'Onofrio; David A Fiellin; Michael V Pantalon; Marek C Chawarski; Patricia H Owens; Linda C Degutis; Susan H Busch; Steven L Bernstein; Patrick G O'Connor Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Steven L Bernstein; Edwin D Boudreaux; Lisa Cabral; Rita K Cydulka; David Schwegman; Gregory L Larkin; Annette L Adams; Lynne B McCullough; Karin V Rhodes Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: John R Hughes; Josue P Keely; Ray S Niaura; Deborah J Ossip-Klein; Robyn L Richmond; Gary E Swan Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: E Jennifer Edelman; James Dziura; Yanhong Deng; Krysten W Bold; Sean M Murphy; Elizabeth Porter; Keith M Sigel; Jessica E Yager; David M Ledgerwood; Steven L Bernstein Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Joana Madureira; Alexandra Camelo; Ana Inês Silva; Ana Teresa Reis; Filipa Esteves; Ana Isabel Ribeiro; João Paulo Teixeira; Carla Costa Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 4.379