Assessing smoking status in disadvantaged populations: is computer administered self report an accurate and acceptable measure?

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Christophe Lecathelinais²  Christine Paul¹  Billie Bonevski²  Jamie Bryant² 

[1]Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute. Room 268 Level 2, David Maddison Building, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia

[2]Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute. Room 230A, Level 2, David Maddison Building, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia

关键词: accuracy;    acceptability;    touch screen computer;    carbon monoxide;    biochemical validation;    Smoking;   

Others  :  1137013
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-11-153

 received in 2011-06-20, accepted in 2011-11-21,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

Self report of smoking status is potentially unreliable in certain situations and in high-risk populations. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and acceptability of computer administered self-report of smoking status among a low socioeconomic (SES) population.

Methods

Clients attending a community service organisation for welfare support were invited to complete a cross-sectional touch screen computer health survey. Following survey completion, participants were invited to provide a breath sample to measure exposure to tobacco smoke in expired air. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated.

Results

Three hundred and eighty three participants completed the health survey, and 330 (86%) provided a breath sample. Of participants included in the validation analysis, 59% reported being a daily or occasional smoker. Sensitivity was 94.4% and specificity 92.8%. The positive and negative predictive values were 94.9% and 92.0% respectively. The majority of participants reported that the touch screen survey was both enjoyable (79%) and easy (88%) to complete.

Conclusions

Computer administered self report is both acceptable and accurate as a method of assessing smoking status among low SES smokers in a community setting. Routine collection of health information using touch-screen computer has the potential to identify smokers and increase provision of support and referral in the community setting.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Bryant et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Patrick DL, Cheadle A, Thompson DC, Diehr P, Koepsell T, Kinne S: The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 1994, 84(7):1086-1093.
• [2]Owen L, McNeill A: Saliva cotinine as indicator of cigarette smoking in pregnant women. Addiction 2001., 96(1001-1006)
• [3]Russell T, Crawford M, Woodby L: Measurements for active cigarette smoke exposure in prevalence and cessation studies: why simply asking pregnant women isn't enough. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2004, 6(Supplement 1):S141-S151.
• [4]Webb DA, Boyd NR, Messina D, Windsor RA: The discrepancy between self-reported smoking status and urine continine levels among women enrolled in prenatal care at four publicly funded clinical sites. J Public Health Manag Pract 2003, 9:322-325.
• [5]Walsh R, Redman S, Adamson L: The accuracy of self-report of smoking status in pregnant women. Addict Behav 1996, 21(5):675-679.
• [6]Lewis SJ, Cherry NM, McNiven R, Barber PV, Wilde K, Povey AC: Cotinine levels and self-reported smoking status in patients attending a bronchoscopy clinic. Biomarkers 2003., 8(218-228)
• [7]Monninkhof E, van der Valk P, van der Palen J, Mulder H, Pieterse M, van Herwaarden C, Zielhuis G: The effect of a minimal contact smoking cessation programme in out-patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pre-post-test study. Patient Educ Couns 2004, 52:231-236.
• [8]Martinez ME, Reid M, Jiang R, Einspahr J, Alberts DS: Accuracy of self reported smoking status among participants in a chemoprevention trial. Prev Med 2004, 38:492-497.
• [9]SRNT subcommittee on biochemical verification: Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2002, 4:148-159.
• [10]Australian Bureau of Statistics: National Health Survey Lifestyle and Health. Catalogue No. 4366.0. Canberra; 1989.
• [11]Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: detailed findings. Drug statistics series no. 22. Cat no. PHE 107. Canberra: AIHW; 2008.
• [12]Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Australia's health 2010. Australia's health service no. 12. Cat. no. AUS122. Canberra: AIHW; 2010.
• [13]Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher R, Campbell E, Ireland MC: Do general practice patients find computer health risk surveys acceptable? A comparison with pen-and-paper method. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 1997, 7:100-106.
• [14]Newell S, Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Stewart J: Are touchscreen computer surveys acceptable to medical oncology patients? Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 1997, 15(2):37-46.
• [15]Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, Doyle DV: Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality of life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006, 45:66-71.
• [16]Shakeshaft AP, Bowman JA, Sanson-Fisher R: Computers in community-based drug and alcohol clinical settings: are they acceptable to respondents? Drug Alcohol Depend 1998, 50(2):177-180.
• [17]Bonevski B, Campbell E, Sanson-Fisher R: The validity and reliability of an interactive computer and alcohol use survey in general practice. Addict Behav 2010, 35:492-498.
• [18]Bock B, Niaura R, Fontes A, Bock F: Acceptability of computer assessments among ethnically diverse, low-income smokers. Am J Health Promot 1999, 13(5):299-304.
• [19]Australian Council of Social Service: Australian community sector survey- Report 2010 Volume 1- National. 2010.
• [20]Bryant J, Bonevski B, Paul C, O'Brien J, Oakes W: Delivering smoking cessation support to disadvantaged groups: A qualitative study of the potential of community welfare organisations. Health Educ Res 2010, 25(6):979-990.
• [21]Wald NJ, Idle M, Boreham J, Bailey A: Carbon monoxide in breath in relation to smoking and carboxyhaemoglobin levels. Thorax 1981, 36:366-369.
• [22]Jarvis MJ, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Feyeraband C, Vesey C, Saloojee Y: Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers. Am J Public Health 1987, 77:1435-1438.
• [23]Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J: Measuring the heaviness of smoking: Using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smokerd per day. Br J Addict 1989, 84(7):791-799.
• [24]Creoso Corporation: Digivey Survey Suite. 3.1.36.0 edition. Arizona, USA;
• [25]Bedfont Scientific: Micro+ Smokerlyzer. Operating Manual. Kent, England; 2011.
• [26]Gilligan C, Sanson-Fisher R, Eades S, Wenitong M, Panaretto K, D'Este C: Assessing the accuracy of self-reported smoking status and impact of passive smoke exposure among pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women using cotinine biochemical verification. Drug and Alcohol Review 2010, 29(1):35-40.
• [27]MacLaren DJ, Conigrave KM, Roberston JA, Ivers RG, Eades S, Clough AR: Using breath carbon monoxide to validate self reported tobacco smoking in remote Australian Indigenous communities. Population Health Metrics 2010., 8(2)
• [28]Cropsey KL, Eldridge GD, Weaver MF, Villalobos GC, Stitzer ML: Expired carbon monoxide levels in self-reported smokers and nonsmokers in prison. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2006, 8(5):653-659.
• [29]Javors MA, Hatch JP, Lamb RJ: Cut-off levels for breath carbon monoxide as a marker for cigarette smoking. Addict Biol 2005, 100:159-167.
• [30]Wolfenden L, Dalton A, Bowman J, Knight J, Burrows S, Wiggers J: Computerized assessment of surgical patients for tobacco use: accuracy and acceptability. Journal of Public Health 2007, 29(2):183-185.
• [31]Bize R, Burnand B, Mueller Y, Rege Walther M, Cornuz J: Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009. (2. Art. No.: CD004705)