Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study assesses self-reported smoking accuracy in adolescents, suggesting biomarker validation is essential.
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: In the local setting, the prevalence of smoking among adolescents varies, as it is based only on self-reporting without biomarker validation. The objective of the present study was to determine the accuracy of self-reported smoking among adolescents as compared to that of the urine cotinine strip test. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 314 adolescents aged 16 years from February 2015 to April 2015 in Putrajaya, Malaysia. The accuracy of self-reporting was assessed using a data collection sheet and was validated by the urine cotinine strip test. Three schools were chosen by the simple random method, where all Form 4 students constituted the sample unit. The kappa statistic was used for determining agreement between self-reporting and urine cotinine strip testing. RESULTS: There was a substantial agreement between self-reporting and the urine cotinine strip test (kappa = 0.757, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 0.88); there was 95.86% overall agreement. The prevalence of self-reported smoking was 8% (95% CI: 7.47, 8.53) and that of urine cotinine strip testing was 10.8% (95% CI: 10.20, 11.41). There was a discrepancy with the results of the urine cotinine strip test in 8% of self-reported smokers and 3.8% of self-reported nonsmokers. Self-reporting had 67.6% sensitivity and 99.3% specificity as compared to those of urine cotinine strip testing and had 92% positive predictive value and 96.2% negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Self-reporting can be used to assess smoking status but should be used with care among adolescents. Urine cotinine strip test validation of self-reporting enables the measurement of the true prevalence of smoking among adolescents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manan et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: