IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0155024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity of Self-Reported Tobacco Smoke Exposure among Non-Smoking Adult Public Housing Residents

Author

Listed:
  • Shona C Fang
  • Shan Chen
  • Felicia Trachtenberg
  • Slawa Rokicki
  • Gary Adamkiewicz
  • Douglas E Levy

Abstract

Introduction: Tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) in public multi-unit housing (MUH) is of concern. However, the validity of self-reports for determining TSE among non-smoking residents in such housing is unclear. Methods: We analyzed data from 285 non-smoking public MUH residents living in non-smoking households in the Boston area. Participants were interviewed about personal TSE in various locations in the past 7 days and completed a diary of home TSE for 7 days. Self-reported TSE was validated against measurable saliva cotinine (lower limit of detection (LOD) 0.02 ng/ml) and airborne apartment nicotine (LOD 5 ng). Correlations, estimates of inter-measure agreement, and logistic regression assessed associations between self-reported TSE items and measurable cotinine and nicotine. Results: Cotinine and nicotine levels were low in this sample (median = 0.026 ng/ml and 0.022 μg/m3, respectively). Prevalence of detectable personal TSE was 66.3% via self-report and 57.0% via measurable cotinine (median concentration among those with cotinine>LOD: 0.057 ng/ml), with poor agreement (kappa = 0.06; sensitivity = 68.9%; specificity = 37.1%). TSE in the home, car, and other peoples’ homes was weakly associated with cotinine levels (Spearman correlations rs = 0.15–0.25), while TSE in public places was not associated with cotinine. Among those with airborne nicotine and daily diary data (n = 161), a smaller proportion had household TSE via self-report (41.6%) compared with measurable airborne nicotine (53.4%) (median concentration among those with nicotine>LOD: 0.04 μg/m3) (kappa = 0.09, sensitivity = 46.5%, specificity = 62.7%). Conclusions: Self-report alone was not adequate to identify individuals with TSE, as 31% with measurable cotinine and 53% with measurable nicotine did not report TSE. Self-report of TSE in private indoor spaces outside the home was most associated with measurable cotinine in this low-income non-smoking population.

Suggested Citation

  • Shona C Fang & Shan Chen & Felicia Trachtenberg & Slawa Rokicki & Gary Adamkiewicz & Douglas E Levy, 2016. "Validity of Self-Reported Tobacco Smoke Exposure among Non-Smoking Adult Public Housing Residents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0155024
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155024
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155024&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0155024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. E. Melinda Mahabee-Gittens & Matthew J. Mazzella & John T. Doucette & Ashley L. Merianos & Lara Stone & Chase A. Wullenweber & Stefanie A. Busgang & Georg E. Matt, 2020. "Comparison of Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Methods to Measure Salivary Cotinine Levels in Ill Children," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Laurel E. Curry & Ashley L. Feld & Todd Rogers & Ellen M. Coats & James Nonnemaker & Elizabeth Anker & Christina Ortega-Peluso & Haven Battles, 2022. "Changes in Reported Secondhand Smoke Incursions and Smoking Behavior after Implementation of a Federal Smoke-Free Rule in New York State Federally Subsidized Public Housing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0155024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.