4.7 Article

Tolerance for and potential indicators of second-hand smoke exposure among nonsmokers: A comparison of self-reported and cotinine verified second-hand smoke exposure based on nationally representative data

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 280-287

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.07.003

关键词

Second-hand smoke; Urinary cotinine; Self-reported exposure; Former smokers; Alcohol drinking

资金

  1. National Cancer Center, Korea [NCC-1310270]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. We assessed the extent to which self-reported exposure to SHS underestimates the actual exposure to SHS and what factors are associated with a tolerance for SHS exposure in the Korean setting where the smoke-free policy is incomplete. Methods. Information on socio-demographic characteristics, alcohol drinking nd smoking was collected for 7948 nonsmokers aged >= 19 years from the fourth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2008-2009. Self-reported and cotinine verified SHS exposures were compared. Potential factors associated with cotinine verified but not self-reported SHS exposures were assessed using a logistic regression model. Results. Self-reported SHS exposure significantly underestimated the actual SHS exposure as determined by cotinine verification (kappa coefficient: 0.1066). At younger age, frequent alcohol drinking in females and a longer smoking duration in males were positively associated with cotinine verified exposure but not with the self-reported SHS exposure; they were also positively associated with cotinine verified exposure irrespective of self-reported SHS exposure. Conclusions. Our findings show a tolerance for smoking in Korea The current partial ban on smoking does not fully protect people from exposure to SHS. Smoking should be banned in all public places. In addition, efforts to de-normalize smoking in the Korean culture need to be strengthened. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据