Lando H A, McGovern P G, Kelder S H, Jeffery R W, Forster J L
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455.
Health Psychol. 1991;10(4):296-301. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.10.4.296.
Assessed the usefulness of carbon monoxide (CO) breath validation of self-reported smoking status in a large worksite population (N = 4,647). CO assessment was performed as part of a baseline survey procedure. CO levels differed substantially in relation to self-reported smoking status and amount smoked. Correcting for ambient exposure (estimated by mean CO levels among never smokers) produced more satisfactory results than uncorrected CO levels. Striking company differences were observed in mean CO exposures among self-reported never smokers. An unexpected finding was that 17.1% of current smokers reported smoking less than daily. Although the CO measure was excellent in detecting moderate and heavy smokers, it was inadequate in detecting occasional and light smokers. If detection of occasional or lighter smoking is critical to the purposes of the study, the more expensive (but more accurate) cotinine measure is preferred.
评估了在一大规模工作场所人群(N = 4647)中,一氧化碳(CO)呼气检测对自我报告吸烟状况的有效性。CO检测作为基线调查程序的一部分进行。CO水平与自我报告的吸烟状况及吸烟量有很大差异。校正环境暴露(通过从不吸烟者中的平均CO水平估计)比未校正的CO水平产生更令人满意的结果。在自我报告的从不吸烟者中,各公司的平均CO暴露存在显著差异。一个意外发现是,17.1%的当前吸烟者报告吸烟频率低于每日一次。尽管CO检测在检测中度和重度吸烟者方面表现出色,但在检测偶尔吸烟者和轻度吸烟者方面却不够充分。如果检测偶尔或轻度吸烟对研究目的至关重要,那么更昂贵(但更准确)的可替宁检测则更为可取。