Patrick D L, Cheadle A, Thompson D C, Diehr P, Koepsell T, Kinne S
Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle 98195.
Am J Public Health. 1994 Jul;84(7):1086-93. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.7.1086.
The purpose of this study was to identify circumstances in which biochemical assessments of smoking produce systematically higher or lower estimates of smoking than self-reports. A secondary aim was to evaluate different statistical approaches to analyzing variation in validity estimates.
Literature searches and personal inquiries identified 26 published reports containing 51 comparisons between self-reported behavior and biochemical measures. The sensitivity and specificity of self-reports of smoking were calculated for each study as measures of accuracy.
Sensitivity ranged from 6% to 100% (mean = 87.5%), and specificity ranged from 33% to 100% (mean = 89.2%). Interviewer-administered questionnaires, observational studies, reports by adults, and biochemical validation with cotinine plasma were associated with higher estimates of sensitivity and specificity.
Self-reports of smoking are accurate in most studies. To improve accuracy, biochemical assessment, preferably with cotinine plasma, should be considered in intervention studies and student populations.
本研究的目的是确定在哪些情况下,吸烟的生化评估比自我报告产生的吸烟估计值系统地更高或更低。次要目的是评估分析效度估计值变化的不同统计方法。
通过文献检索和个人询问,确定了26篇已发表的报告,其中包含51项自我报告行为与生化测量之间的比较。计算每项研究中吸烟自我报告的敏感性和特异性,作为准确性的指标。
敏感性范围为6%至100%(平均=87.5%),特异性范围为33%至100%(平均=89.2%)。由访谈者实施的问卷调查、观察性研究、成年人的报告以及用可替宁血浆进行的生化验证,与更高的敏感性和特异性估计值相关。
在大多数研究中,吸烟的自我报告是准确的。为提高准确性,在干预研究和学生群体中应考虑进行生化评估,最好是使用可替宁血浆。