Original article
Cotinine validation of self-reported smoking in commercially run community surveys

https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90105-6Get rights and content

Abstract

A validation study was carried out on self-reported smoking for 1177 people in Sydney and Melbourne in 1983. Because of its long half life and the fact that smoking is its only source in body fluids, saliva cotinine was chosen as the validation measure. Cotinine levels above 250 nmol/1 were used to classify people as smokers. The sensitivity of self-reported smoking was 92.6% and the specificity was 93.4%. There was some evidence that people in the process of changing their smoking status might be slow in updating their self-classification. The smoking prevalence estimate based on cotinine levels was found to be 1.7% lower than that for self-reported smoking status. The small proportion of false negatives and false positives suggests that commercially collected data banks can be valid sources of prevalence data. Correlation between cotinine level and reported cigarette consumption was not affected by sample volume, and was similar to that achieved for carbon monoxide and thiocyanate at a low 0.34. Regression analysis using self-reported cigarette consumption filter/non-filter cigarettes, and time since last cigarette as predictors, explained 13.6% of the variance in cotinine level.

References (21)

  • DM Prue et al.

    A critical evaluation of thocyanate as a biochemical index of smoking exposure

    Behav Ther

    (1980)
  • P Hill et al.

    Cigarette smoking: carboxyhaemoglobin, plasma nicotine, cotinine and thiocyanate vs self-reported smoking data and cardiovascular disease

    J Chron Dis

    (1983)
  • JD Cohen et al.

    A comparison between carboxyhaemoglobin and serum thiocyanate determinations as indicators of cigarette smoking

    Am J Public Health

    (1980)
  • RI Evans et al.

    Increasing the validity of self-reports of smoking behaviour in children

    J Appl Psychol

    (1977)
  • SP Fortmann et al.

    Indirect measures of cigarette use: expired-air carbon monoxide versus plasma thiocyanate

    Prev Med

    (1984)
  • C Feyerband et al.

    Rapid gas-liquid Chromatographie determination of cotinine in biological fluids

    Analyst

    (1980)
  • P Hill et al.

    Plasma and urine changes after smoking different brands of cigarettes

    Clin Pharmacol Ther

    (1980)
  • JJ Langone et al.

    Quantification of cotinine in sera of smokers

    Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol

    (1975)
  • RV Luepker et al.

    Saliva thiocyanate: A chemical indicator of cigarette smoking in adolescents

    Am J Public Health

    (1981)
  • DB Petitti et al.

    Accuracy of information on smoking habits provided on self-administered research questionnaires

    Am J Public Health

    (1981)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (93)

  • Overview of cotinine cutoff values for smoking status classification

    2019, Neuroscience of Nicotine: Mechanisms and Treatment
  • Mailed distribution of free nicotine patches without behavioral support: Predictors of use and cessation

    2017, Addictive Behaviors
    Citation Excerpt :

    Relapse to smoking while using patches and subsequently discontinuing, or experiencing cravings and discontinuing patch use prior to resumption of smoking, both underscore ineffectiveness of nicotine patches and are valid reasons for stopping patch use. Most NRT users who relapse in fact cease aid use simultaneously (Pierce, Dwyer, DiGiusto, et al., 1987). Excluding all those who relapsed from all analyses would therefore overestimate the association between patch use and cessation, particularly so when conservative intent-to-treat analyses are employed.

  • Sequential combination of self-report, breath carbon monoxide, and saliva cotinine to assess smoking status

    2011, Drug and Alcohol Dependence
    Citation Excerpt :

    The shortcomings of BCO suggest that combining BCO with sCOT as a reflex test would extend detection period while reducing the cost of testing. sCOT has been widely used as a marker for cigarette smoking for at least two decades (Etzel, 1990; Curvall et al., 1990; Noland et al., 1988; Pierce et al., 1987) and has several advantages as a marker of smoking. sCOT has similar pharmacokinetics to pCOT and is as sensitive as pCOT at detecting smoking (Gorber et al., 2009; Jarvis et al., 2003; Curvall et al., 1990).

  • Agreement among multiple measures of self-reported smoking status in Chinese urban residents

    2010, Public Health
    Citation Excerpt :

    Questions about the validity of self-report data frequently surfaced in situations evoking norms and concomitant social pressure for conformity.3,4 However, these threats to validity appear to have introduced minimal error, especially in the general population survey.4–7 Indeed, due to the high prevalence of smoking among adult males, and concurrent acceptance of smoking as a social norm, social desirability bias in self-reported smoking status in China is likely to be relatively small.8

  • Smoking trends among Filipino adults in California, 1990-2002

    2008, Preventive Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Our results are based on self and proxy reports of current smoking status obtained from the CTS screener surveys. The use of proxy responses may introduce misclassification of smoking behavior, however, this has been shown to have a negligible effect on overall estimates of population smoking prevalence, and any such effect should be constant over time and would not affect estimates of trend (Gilpin et al., 1994; Pierce et al., 1987). In addition, the CTS do not include cell phones in the sampling frame, and prevalence of households with cell-only phone service is increasing.

View all citing articles on Scopus

The project was managed by a Steering Committee: A. Cripps (Chairperson),1 J. Carson,1 T. Dwyer,2 G. Frape,1 D. Gadiel,3 E. Henry,4 B. Herriot,5 B. Higham,1 J. Mullins,6 J. Pierce,2 C. Sarfaty,4 J. Shaw7 and S. Walker.7 1 New South Wales Department of Health,2 Commonwealth Institute of Health, 3Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, 4New South Wales State Cancer Council, 5Australian Medical Association, 6Pharmacy Guild of New South Wales and 7National Heart Foundation of Australia.

View full text