Why the study?
Most cardiac rehabilitation programs rely on self-report measures when assessing smoking, but the accuracy compared to objective measurement was not well defined.
Does objective measurement using expired carbon monoxide (CO) identify more active smokers compared to self-report in patients entering cardiac rehabilitation?
Does objective measurement using expired carbon monoxide (CO) identify more active smokers compared to self-report in patients entering cardiac rehabilitation?
Objective carbon monoxide monitoring identifies active smokers misclassified by self-report in cardiac rehabilitation programs.
Objective CO may detect more smokers than self-report in CR; leaves open whether routine use improves risk stratification.
OBJECTIVE: Participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. However, most programs rely on self-report measures when assessing the critical risk factor of smoking. This study examined smoking status using self-report versus objective measurement using expired carbon monoxide (CO) and compared patient characteristics by CO level. METHOD: Patients were screened for smoking status when entering CR by self-report and by objectively measured CO. Measures of aerobic fitness, educational attainment, depressive symptoms, and self-reported physical function were also collected. The discrepancy between smoking status based on self-report and objective measurement was examined and patient characteristics by CO measurement were compared. RESULTS: < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients who are actively smoking may be misclassified by relying on patient report alone. CO monitoring provides a simple and objective method of systematically screening patients. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gaalema et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: