W W Stoops1,2,3, M F Johnson4, J C Strickland3, H K Knudsen1, G H Gilbert5, S D Massingale5, M N Ray6, C R Studts7, L Atchley8, G Reynolds9, E Slade10, J L Studts1,4,11. 1. Department of Behavioral Science, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, KY USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, KY USA. 3. Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Kentucky, KY USA. 4. Behavioral and Community-Based Research Shared Resource Facility, University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center, KY USA. 5. Department of Clinical & Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA. 6. Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA. 7. Department of Health, Behavior & Society, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY US. 8. General Dentist, Phenix City, AL USA. 9. Health Decision Technologies LLC, Oakland, CA USA. 10. Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, KY USA. 11. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center, KY USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of collecting and analyzing saliva samples from dental practices and patients' homes for biochemical verification of tobacco use status. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Sub-study within single-arm, multi-center, longitudinal clinical study. CLINICAL SETTING: Dental practices in the South Central region of the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network and patients' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-five patients recruited from 30 dental practices. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the sub-study were instructed on saliva collection for cotinine analysis in dental practices where they enrolled in the primary study. Saliva was collected at the practices and then from patients' homes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility for dental practice collection was define as 80% of enrolled participants having analyzable samples. For patients' home collection, feasibility was defined as 70%. RESULTS: Forty-seven samples (i.e., 86% of those enrolled) collected in dental practices were analyzable. Twenty-one samples (i.e. 38% of those enrolled) collected in patients' homes were analyzable. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting saliva samples for cotinine analysis from dental practices, but not from patients' homes, was feasible. Dental practices may provide an advantageous setting for biochemically verifying tobacco use status as part of clinical trials for tobacco cessation. Copyright
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of collecting and analyzing saliva samples from dental practices and patients' homes for biochemical verification of tobacco use status. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Sub-study within single-arm, multi-center, longitudinal clinical study. CLINICAL SETTING: Dental practices in the South Central region of the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network and patients' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-five patients recruited from 30 dental practices. INTERVENTIONS:Participants in the sub-study were instructed on saliva collection for cotinine analysis in dental practices where they enrolled in the primary study. Saliva was collected at the practices and then from patients' homes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility for dental practice collection was define as 80% of enrolled participants having analyzable samples. For patients' home collection, feasibility was defined as 70%. RESULTS: Forty-seven samples (i.e., 86% of those enrolled) collected in dental practices were analyzable. Twenty-one samples (i.e. 38% of those enrolled) collected in patients' homes were analyzable. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting saliva samples for cotinine analysis from dental practices, but not from patients' homes, was feasible. Dental practices may provide an advantageous setting for biochemically verifying tobacco use status as part of clinical trials for tobacco cessation. Copyright
Authors: Ian Needleman; Saman Warnakulasuriya; Gay Sutherland; Michael M Bornstein; Elias Casals; Thomas Dietrich; Jean Suvan Journal: Oral Health Prev Dent Date: 2006 Impact factor: 1.256
Authors: D Brad Rindal; William A Rush; Titus K L Schleyer; Michael Kirshner; Raymond G Boyle; Merry Jo Thoele; Stephen E Asche; Thankam Thyvalikakath; Heiko Spallek; Emily C U Durand; Chris J Enstad; Charles L Huntley Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Gregg H Gilbert; O Dale Williams; James J Korelitz; Jeffrey L Fellows; Valeria V Gordan; Sonia K Makhija; Cyril Meyerowitz; Thomas W Oates; D Brad Rindal; Paul L Benjamin; Patrick J Foy Journal: J Dent Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lehana Thabane; Jinhui Ma; Rong Chu; Ji Cheng; Afisi Ismaila; Lorena P Rios; Reid Robson; Marroon Thabane; Lora Giangregorio; Charles H Goldsmith Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.615