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

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 11, Issue , 2011, Pages

  Bryant, Jamie ^a   Bonevski, Billie ^a   Paul, Christine ^b   Lecathelinais, Christophe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

acceptability; accuracy; biochemical validation; carbon monoxide; Smoking; touch screen computer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF REPORT; SMOKING; SOCIAL CLASS; STATISTICS; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

ADULT; AGED; COMPUTER SYSTEMS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW SOUTH WALES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF REPORT; SMOKING; SOCIAL CLASS; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 81355147131     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-153     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis. Patrick DL, Cheadle A, Thompson DC, Diehr P, Koepsell T, Kinne S, Am J Public Health 1994 84 7 1086 1093 10.2105/AJPH.84.7.1086 8017530 (Pubitemid 24242478)
2. Saliva cotinine as indicator of cigarette smoking in pregnant women. Owen L, McNeill A, Addiction 2001 96 1001-1006
3. Measurements for active cigarette smoke exposure in prevalence and cessation studies: why simply asking pregnant women isn't enough. Russell T, Crawford M, Woodby L, Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2004 6 Supplement 1 141 S151 15203817
4. The discrepancy between self-reported smoking status and urine continine levels among women enrolled in prenatal care at four publicly funded clinical sites. Webb DA, Boyd NR, Messina D, Windsor RA, J Public Health Manag Pract 2003 9 322 325 12836515
5. The accuracy of self-report of smoking status in pregnant women. Walsh R, Redman S, Adamson L, Addict Behav 1996 21 5 675 679 10.1016/0306-4603(95)00097- 6 8876767 (Pubitemid 26296176)
6. Cotinine levels and self-reported smoking status in patients attending a bronchoscopy clinic. Lewis SJ, Cherry NM, McNiven R, Barber PV, Wilde K, Povey AC, Biomarkers 2003 8 218-228
7. The effect of a minimal contact smoking cessation programme in out-patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pre-post-test study. Monninkhof E, van der Valk P, van der Palen J, Mulder H, Pieterse M, van Herwaarden C, Zielhuis G, Patient Educ Couns 2004 52 231 236 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00096-X 14998591 (Pubitemid 38283892)
8. Accuracy of self reported smoking status among participants in a chemoprevention trial. Martinez ME, Reid M, Jiang R, Einspahr J, Alberts DS, Prev Med 2004 38 492 497 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.12.006 15020184 (Pubitemid 38327022)
9. Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. SRNT subcommittee on biochemical verification, Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2002 4 148 159
10. National Health Survey Lifestyle and Health. Catalogue No. 4366.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra 1989
11. -2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: detailed findings. Drug statistics series no. 22. Cat no. PHE 107. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra: AIHW 2008
12. Australia's health 2010. Australia's health service no. 12. Cat. no. AUS122. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra: AIHW 2010
13. Do general practice patients find computer health risk surveys acceptable? A comparison with pen-and-paper method. Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher R, Campbell E, Ireland MC, Health Promotion Journal of Australia 1997 7 100 106
14. Are touchscreen computer surveys acceptable to medical oncology patients? Newell S, Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Stewart J, Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 1997 15 2 37 46 10.1300/J077v15n02-03 (Pubitemid 27452553)
15. 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. Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, Doyle DV, Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006 45 66 71 10.1093/rheumatology/kei100 (Pubitemid 43033877)
16. Computers in community-based drug and alcohol clinical settings: are they acceptable to respondents? Shakeshaft AP, Bowman JA, Sanson-Fisher R, Drug Alcohol Depend 1998 50 2 177 180 10.1016/S0376-8716(98)00019-2 9649969 (Pubitemid 28271632)
17. The validity and reliability of an interactive computer and alcohol use survey in general practice. Bonevski B, Campbell E, Sanson-Fisher R, Addict Behav 2010 35 492 498 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.12.030 20092954
18. Acceptability of computer assessments among ethnically diverse, low-income smokers. Bock B, Niaura R, Fontes A, Bock F, Am J Health Promot 1999 13 5 299 304 10538645 (Pubitemid 29289839)
19. Australian community sector survey- Report 2010 Volume 1- National. Australian Council of Social Service, 2010
20. Delivering smoking cessation support to disadvantaged groups: A qualitative study of the potential of community welfare organisations. Bryant J, Bonevski B, Paul C, O'Brien J, Oakes W, Health Educ Res 2010 25 6 979 990 10.1093/her/cyq051 20884732
21. Carbon monoxide in breath in relation to smoking and carboxyhaemoglobin levels. Wald NJ, Idle M, Boreham J, Bailey A, Thorax 1981 36 366 369 10.1136/thx.36.5.366 7314006 (Pubitemid 11105830)
22. Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers. Jarvis MJ, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Feyeraband C, Vesey C, Saloojee Y, Am J Public Health 1987 77 1435 1438 10.2105/AJPH.77.11.1435 3661797 (Pubitemid 18011591)
23. Measuring the heaviness of smoking: Using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smokerd per day. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J, Br J Addict 1989 84 7 791 799 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb03059.x 2758152
24. Digivey Survey Suite. Creoso Corporation, Arizona, USA 3.1.36.0
25. Micro+ Smokerlyzer. Operating Manual. Bedfont Scientific, Kent, England 2011
26. 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. Gilligan C, Sanson-Fisher R, Eades S, Wenitong M, Panaretto K, D'Este C, Drug and Alcohol Review 2010 29 1 35 40 20078680
27. Using breath carbon monoxide to validate self reported tobacco smoking in remote Australian Indigenous communities. MacLaren DJ, Conigrave KM, Roberston JA, Ivers RG, Eades S, Clough AR, Population Health Metrics 2010 8 2
28. Expired carbon monoxide levels in self-reported smokers and nonsmokers in prison. Cropsey KL, Eldridge GD, Weaver MF, Villalobos GC, Stitzer ML, Nicotine and Tobacco Research 2006 8 5 653 659 10.1080/14622200600789684 17008192 (Pubitemid 44480414)
29. Cut-off levels for breath carbon monoxide as a marker for cigarette smoking. Javors MA, Hatch JP, Lamb RJ, Addict Biol 2005 100 159 167 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00957.x (Pubitemid 40255373)
30. Computerized assessment of surgical patients for tobacco use: accuracy and acceptability. Wolfenden L, Dalton A, Bowman J, Knight J, Burrows S, Wiggers J, Journal of Public Health 2007 29 2 183 185 10.1093/pubmed/fdm015 17456531
31. Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Bize R, Burnand B, Mueller Y, Rege Walther M, Cornuz J, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 (2. Art. No.: CD004705)