BIOCHEMICAL VALIDATION OF SMOKING STATUS - PROS, CONS, AND DATA FROM 4 LOW-INTENSITY INTERVENTION TRIALS
BIOCHEMICAL VALIDATION OF SMOKING STATUS - PROS, CONS, AND DATA FROM 4 LOW-INTENSITY INTERVENTION TRIALS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0306-4603(93)90068-k
复制
发表时间：
1993-09-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
VOGT, MR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
GLASGOW, RE;MULLOOLY, JP;VOGT, MR
长期以来，吸烟状况的生化验证一直被认为是必不可少的，但最近的报告对其在某些类型的现场试验中的效用提出了质疑。我们描述了在门诊诊所、医院、工作场所和牙科诊所进行的四项大规模随机试验中，对参与者的戒烟自我报告进行生化验证的努力。这些研究包括 5,000 多名成年吸烟者，他们参与了基于人群的低强度干预评估。在一年的随访中，798 名受试者报告没有吸烟。我们尝试使用唾液可替宁/一氧化碳验证程序来验证这些报告。总体而言，在调查和生化验证之间的时间间隔内，未参与率较高（27%），否定率较低（4%），自我报告复发率较高（12%）。在上述任何变量上，干预和控制条件之间没有差异。自我报告的禁欲时间较长与生化确认概率的增加密切相关。不同项目的结果差异与生化验证的进行方式有关。这些结果以及统计功效的考虑，引发了关于生化验证程序在这种基于人群的低强度干预研究中是否实用、信息丰富或具有成本效益的问题。
Biochemical validation of smoking status has long been considered essential, but recent reports have questioned its utility in certain kinds of field trials. We describe efforts to biochemically validate self-reports of smoking cessation from participants in four large-scale randomized trials in outpatient clinics, hospitals, worksites, and dental clinics. These studies included over 5,000 adult smokers who participated in the population-based low-intensity intervention evaluations. At a 1-year follow-up, 798 subjects reported no tobacco use. We attempted to verify these reports using saliva cotinine/carbon monoxide validation procedures. Overall, there was a moderately high nonparticipation rate (27%), a low disconfirmation rate (4%), and a high self-reported relapse rate (12%) in the interval between survey and biochemical validation. There were no differences between intervention and control conditions on any of the above variables. Longer durations of self-reported abstinence were strongly related to increased probability of biochemical confirmation. Differences in results across projects were related to how biochemical validation was conducted. These results, as well as statistical power considerations, raise questions about whether biochemical validation procedures are practical, informative, or cost-effective in such population-based, low-intensity intervention research.