Comparison of parental reports of smoking and residential air nicotine concentrations in children
Comparison of parental reports of smoking and residential air nicotine concentrations in children
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/oem.2006.027151
复制
发表时间：
2006-11-01
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Brunekreef, B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gehring, U.;Leaderer, B. P.;Brunekreef, B.
背景资料：使用问卷调查来评估儿童的住宅暴露于环境烟草烟雾（ETS）可能会导致错误分类的回忆和反应偏见。问卷调查数据经常被验证对尿可替宁测量，但很少对住宅空气nitricotin.Objective的实际测量：比较问卷报告吸烟与空气中尼古丁浓度在一个大的儿童人群和尿可替宁水平在一个亚群，并评估不同的暴露措施之间的协议的儿童的症状状态的潜在影响。研究方法：作者通过问卷调查和空气尼古丁测量评估了347名德国、335名荷兰和354名瑞典学龄前和学龄儿童的ETS住宅暴露，并通过尿可替宁测量评估了307名德国儿童的住宅暴露。然后，他们比较了不同的措施ETS exposition.Results：在所有国家，空气中尼古丁浓度的增加，增加问卷报告吸烟的剂量反应方式。尼古丁浓度问卷报告的特异性和阴性预测值非常好。灵敏度和阳性预测值为中度至良好。不包括偶尔吸烟者，在德国、荷兰和瑞典，被错误分类的家庭的总体百分比分别为6.9%、6.7%和5.1%。尿可替宁浓度与问卷报告和空气尼古丁水平的一致性也发现了类似的结果。有症状的children.Conclusion：尽管有一些错误的分类，问卷调查报告是一个廉价和有效的估计住宅ETS暴露在学龄前和学龄儿童的父母的低报。
Background: Using questionnaires to assess children's residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) may result in misclassification from recall and response bias. Questionnaire data have frequently been validated against urinary cotinine measurements, but rarely against actual measurements of residential air nicotine.Objective: To compare questionnaire reported smoking with air nicotine concentrations in a large population of children and with urinary cotinine levels in a subpopulation; and to assess the potential impact of the symptom status of the children on the agreement between different measures of exposure. Methods: The authors assessed residential exposure to ETS in 347 German, 335 Dutch, and 354 Swedish preschool and schoolchildren by questionnaire and air nicotine measurements, and in a subset of 307 German children by urinary cotinine measurements. They then compared the different measures of ETS exposure.Results: In all countries, air nicotine concentrations increased with increasing questionnaire reported smoking in a dose-response fashion. Specificity and negative predictive values of questionnaire reports for nicotine concentrations were excellent. Sensitivity and positive predictive values were moderate to good. Excluding occasional smokers, the overall percentage of homes misclassified was 6.9%, 6.7%, and 5.1% in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, respectively. Similar results were found for the agreement of urinary cotinine concentrations with questionnaire reports and air nicotine levels. There was no indication of underreporting by parents of symptomatic children.Conclusion: Despite some misclassification, questionnaire reports are an inexpensive and valid estimate of residential ETS exposure among preschool and school children.