4.5 Article

Can we trust national smoking prevalence figures? Discrepancies between biochemically assessed and self-reported smoking rates in three countries

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 820-822

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0679

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: National smoking prevalence estimates are the primary basis for assessing progress in tobacco control across the world. They are based on surveys of self-reported cigarette smoking. It has been assumed that this is sufficiently accurate for policy purposes, but this assumption has not been adequately tested. Methods: We report data from the 2003 Health Survey for England, the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2001-2002, and the 2004 national smoking behaviors survey in Poland as examples of countries at different stages in the tobacco epidemic. Self-reported cigarette and total tobacco smoking prevalence were assessed by means of the standard questions used in each country. In subsamples, specimens were collected for analysis of cotinine (saliva, N = 1,613 in England; serum, N = 4,687 in the United States; and saliva, N = 388 in Poland) providing an objective means of determining active smoking. A cut point of 15 ng/mL was used to discriminate active smoking from passive smoke exposure. Results: Self-reported cigarette smoking prevalence using the standard methods underestimated true tobacco smoking prevalence by an estimated 2.8% in England, 0.6% in the United States, and 4.4% in Poland. Cotinine concentrations in those misclassified as nonsmokers were indicative of high levels of smoke intake. Interpretation: Underestimation of smoking prevalence was minimal in the United States but significant in England and Poland. A review of methodologies for assessing tobacco smoking prevalence worldwide is urgently needed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available