4.2 Article

Factors Associated With the Differences Between Self-Report Smoking and Urinary Cotinine Criteria

Journal

ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 357-368

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1010539520986248

Keywords

logistic regression; self-report; secondhand smoke; underreporting; urinary cotinine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study in Korea revealed discrepancies between self-reported smoking status and urinary cotinine test results, with secondhand smoke exposure in nonsmokers showing a positive association with underreporting.
During self-reporting, respondents underreport their smoking status for various reasons. We aimed to evaluate the difference between smoking status self-reporting and urinary cotinine tests in Korea respondents. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the differences between self-reporting and urinary cotinine criteria. The dependent variable was the underreporting of smoking status; independent variables were sociodemographic, health status, and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. Total underreporting was 3.6% when Cot >= 164 and 4.0% when Cot-variable (classified) criteria underreported. Positive associations were found between smoking and age, education, drinking, and SHS. Underreporting in the nonsmoker group (odds ratio [OR] = 2.336; confidence interval [CI] = 1.717-3.179) was significantly associated with SHS, but this difference was nonsignificant in the ex-smoker group (OR = 1.184; CI = 0.879-1.638). Underreporting was 3.6% to 4.0%, and C-statistics was about 0.7, indicating that outcomes could be classified. SHS in nonsmokers was positively associated with underreporting; however, only the nonsmoker group had positive associations, demonstrating unintentional underreporting due to SHS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available