Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Occup Environ Med : Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
1 "Smoking questionnaire"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Research Article
Validity assessment of self-reported smoking status in firefighters using the urine cotinine test
Han Cheol Heo, Young Seok Byun, Soo Ho Sohn, Seong Min Jo, Sung Kyu Park, Joon Sakong
Ann Occup Environ Med 2020;32:e2.   Published online January 2, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2020.32.e2
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Background

In firefighters, smoking management is important because they are exposed to various harmful substances in their occupational environment. Accurate surveys of smoking status are essential to control tobacco use. The main disadvantage of self-report questionnaires, which are commonly used for investigating smoking status, is the possibility that the subjects' response are invalid. If the validity of firefighters' answers on smoking questionnaires is not adequate, different methods will be needed for investigating smoking status in firefighters.

Methods

This study was conducted on 445 male firefighters from 9 fire stations in Daegu (the city in South Korea) who visited a medical institution for medical checkup in 2016. The urine cotinine test strip (DCT-102; CLIAwaived Inc., cut-off value = 200 ng/mL) was used to classify the actual smoking status and to assess the validity of self-reported smoking status on questionnaires. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the smoking questionnaires were analyzed. Subjects testing positive in the urine cotinine test (assumed the actual current smokers) were selected. The frequency at which actual current smokers were misclassified as current non-smokers by the questionnaire was calculated. Subjects' characteristics were analyzed for possible association with any discrepancy between self-reported smoking status and urine cotinine test results.

Results

The smoking rates among firefighters surveyed using the smoking questionnaire and the urine cotinine test were 22.47% and 51.24%, respectively. Of the all subjects, 29.66% (n = 132) were misclassified. The sensitivity of the smoking questionnaire was 42.98%, the specificity was 99.08%, the PPV was 98.00%, and the NPV was 62.32%. In the 228 subjects classified as current actual smokers by the urine cotinine test, 57.02% (n = 130) were misclassified on the questionnaire. The misclassification rate increased with age. The degree of misclassification also increased when subjects had a history of disease.

Conclusions

In present study, the validity of the smoking questionnaire for firefighters was not suitable for investigating smoking status due to low sensitivity. To increase the validity of smoking status monitoring in firefighters, consideration of the various factors like survey environment, subjects' characteristics, and occupational factors is needed.


Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Association between Smoking Status and the Risk of Hip Fracture in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Population-Based Study
    Se-Won Lee, Jun-Young Heu, Ju-Yeong Kim, Jinyoung Kim, Kyungdo Han, Hyuk-Sang Kwon
    Endocrinology and Metabolism.2023; 38(6): 679.     CrossRef
  • Smoking Prevalence and Factors Associated with False Reporting in Korean Adolescents: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2016-2020)
    Seong Jun Park, Yoo Bin Seo, Jungun Lee, Seung Hee Kim, Chung Hwan Kim
    Korean Journal of Family Practice.2022; 12(5): 375.     CrossRef
  • Combustible cigarettes, heated tobacco products, combined product use, and periodontal disease: A cross-sectional JASTIS study
    Takashi Yoshioka, Takahiro Tabuchi, Stanton A. Glantz
    PLOS ONE.2021; 16(3): e0248989.     CrossRef
  • Biomonitoring of smoke exposure in firefighters: A review
    Biban Gill, Philip Britz-McKibbin
    Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health.2020; 15: 57.     CrossRef
  • 243 View
  • 2 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 4 Crossref
Close layer

Ann Occup Environ Med : Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Close layer
TOP