Journal Information
Vol. 41. Issue 3.
Pages 135-140 (March 2005)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 41. Issue 3.
Pages 135-140 (March 2005)
Original Articles
Full text access
Veracity of Smokers' Response Regarding Abstinence at Smoking Cessation Clinics
Visits
4489
M. Barruecoa,
Corresponding author
MIBAFE@telefonica.net

Correspondence: Dr M. Barrueco. Servicio de Neumología. Hospital Universitario de Salamanca. P.° de San Vicente, 58-182. 37007 Salamanca. España
, C. Jiménez Ruizb, L. Palomoc, M. Torrecillad, P. Romeroe, J.A. Riescof
a Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
b Unidad de Tabaquismo, Instituto de Salud Pública de la Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
c Centro de Salud de Coria, Coria, Cáceres, Spain
d Centro de Salud San Juan, Salamanca, Spain
e Hospital General de Baza, Baza, Granada, Spain
f Unidad de Neumología, Hospital San Pedro de Alcántara, Cáceres, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Objective

To assess the reliability of smokers' response as criteria for measuring abstinence and the necessity or not of confirming abstinence with carbon monoxide (CO) measurement.

Patients and methods

A multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study was carried out on patients over 18 years of age from 5 smoking cessation clinics who underwent treatment with nicotine or bupropion. When the patient attended the clinic at 15,30,60,90, and 180 days, abstinence was checked by self-reporting and expired-air CO levels. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive, negative, and overall predictive value of patient reporting, measured CO levels, and the 2 procedures in combination were calculated.

Results

A total of 904 smokers (476 men and 428 women) with a mean (SD) age of 42.51 (10.09) years were enrolled in the study. Of the 904 patients that made up the study population, 820,776,687,719, and 679, respectively, attended the scheduled visits to check abstinence. Self-reported point-prevalence abstinence at 15 days was 74.5% and at 180 days was 57.6% while abstinence determined by expired-air CO was 75.7% and 59.4% respectively. Results according to self-reporting, CO measurement, and the 2 methods in combination were not significantly different (P <.05) at any of the points in time. Neither sensitivity nor specificity showed significant differences in relation to patient variables.

Conclusion

The reliability of self-reported abstinence from smoking is high. Measurement of CO is therefore not essential, although it could be advisable for motivating patients rather than as a way of confirming abstinence.

Key Words:
Tobacco
Smoking cessation
Self-report
Carbon monoxide
Objetivo

Valorar la fiabilidad de la respuesta del fuma-dor como criterio de medida de abstinencia y el carácter de prescindible o indispensable de la determinación de monóxi-do de carbono (CO) para corroborar dicho criterio.

Pacientes Y Métodos

Se ha realizado un estudio multi-céntrico, prospectivo y longitudinal en pacientes mayores de 18 años que acudieron a 5 consultas de tabaquismo y a quienes se pautó tratamiento sustitutivo con nicotina o bupropión. Se efectuaron controles a los 15, 30, 60, 90 y 180 días. En cada control se determinó la abstinencia mediante la respuesta dada por el paciente, la determinación de CO en aire espirado y ambos procedimientos conjuntamente. Se calcularon la sensibilidad, especificidad, valor predictivo po-sitivo, negativo y global de la respuesta dada por el paciente respecto de la determinación de CO.

Resultados

Se incluyó en el estudio a 904 fumadores (476 varones y 428 mujeres), con una edad media (± desviación estándar) de 42,51 ± 10,09 años. De los 904 acudieron a los controles programados 820, 776, 687, 719 y 679, respectiva-mente, que constituyen la población objeto de estudio. La abstinencia puntual a los 15 y 180 días determinada por la respuesta de los pacientes fue del 74,5 y del 57,6%, y mediante determinación de CO en aire espirado del 75,7 y del 59,4%, respectivamente. No se observaron diferencias signi-ficativas (p < 0,05) entre los 3 procedimientos a los 15, 30, 60, 90 y 180 días. Ni la sensibilidad ni la especificidad mostraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las distintas categorías de las variables.

Conclusión

La fiabilidad de la respuesta dada por los pacientes sobre la abstinencia tabáquica es elevada. Por ello la determinación de CO es prescindible y no resulta indispensable, si bien en el seguimiento del proceso puede ser re-comendable como factor motivador para el paciente más que como una forma de comprobar la abstinencia.

Palabras clave:
Tabaco
Deshabituación
Autorrespuesta
Monóxido de carbono
Full text is only aviable in PDF
REFERENCES
[1]
DB Petitti, GD Friedman, W Kahn.
Accuracy of information on smoking habits provided on self-administered research questionnaires.
Am J Public Health, 71 (1981), pp. 308-311
[2]
G Pershagen.
Validity of questionnaire on smoking and other exposures, with especial reference to environmental tobacco smoke.
Eur J Respir Dis., 133 (1984), pp. 76-80
[3]
H Waage, T Silsand, P Urdal, S Langard.
Discrimination of smoking status by thiocyanate and cotinine in serum, and carbon monoxide in expired air.
Int J Epidemiol., 21 (1992), pp. 488-493
[4]
MJ Jarvis, MAH Russell, Y Salojee.
Expired air carbon monoxide: a simple breath test of tobacco smoke intake.
BMJ., 281 (1980), pp. 484-485
[5]
JM Irving, EC Clark, IK Crombie.
Evaluation of a portable measure of expired-air carbon monoxide.
Prev Med., 17 (1988), pp. 109-115
[6]
A Deller, R Stenz, K Forstner, F Konrad.
The elimination of carboxyhemoglobin-gender specific and circadian effects.
Infusionsther Transfusionsmed., 19 (1992), pp. 121-126
[7]
DL Patrick, A Cheadle, DC Thompson, P Diehr, T Koepsell, S Kinne.
The validity of self-reported smoking: a review and metaanalysis.
Am J Public Health, 84 (1994), pp. 1086-1093
[8]
CA Jiménez Ruiz, S Solano Reina, JM González de Vega, MJ Ruiz Pardo, S Flórez Perona, A Ramos Pinedo, et al.
Normativa para el tratamiento del tabaquismo.
Arch Bronconeumol., 35 (1999), pp. 499-506
[9]
CA Jiménez Ruiz, M Barrueco Ferrero, S Solano Reina, M Torrecilla García, F Domínguez Grandal, JL Díaz-Maroto Muñoz, et al.
Recomendaciones en el abordaje diagnóstico y terapéutico del tabaquismo. Documento de consenso.
Arch Bronconeumol., 39 (2003), pp. 35-41
[10]
MJ Jarvis, H Tunstall-Pedoe, C Feyerabend, C Vesey, Y Saloojee.
Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from non-smokers.
Am J Public Health, 77 (1987), pp. 1435-1438
[11]
T Nakayama, A Yamamoto, T Ichimura, N Yoshiike, T Yokoyama, EK Fujimoto, et al.
An optimal cutoff point of expired-air carbon monoxide levels for detecting current smoking: in the case of a Japanese population whose smoking prevalence was sixty percent.
J Epidemiol., 8 (1988), pp. 140-145
[12]
DB Coultas, CA Howard, GT Peake, BJ Skipper, JM Samet.
Discrepancies between self-reported and validated cigarette smoking in a community survey of New Mexico Hispanics.
Am Rev Respir Dis., 137 (1988), pp. 810-814
[13]
A Morabia, MS Bernstein, F Curtin, M Berode.
Validation of self-reported smoking status by simultaneous measurement of carbon monoxide and salivary thiocyanate.
Prev Med., 32 (2001), pp. 82-88
[14]
MM Dolcini, NE Adler, P Lee, KE Bauman.
An assessment of the validity of adolescent self-reported smoking using three biological indicators.
Nicotine Tob Res., 5 (2003), pp. 473-483
[15]
M Barrueco, R Cordovilla, MA Hernández-Mezquita, JM González, J de Castro, P Rivas, et al.
Veracidad en las respuestas de niños, adolescentes y jóvenes a las encuestas sobre el consumo de tabaco realizadas en los centros escolares.
Med Clin (Barc), 112 (1999), pp. 251-254
[16]
M Barrueco, M Torrecilla, JA Maderuelo, C Jiménez Ruiz, M Hernández, MD Plaza.
Valor predictivo de la abstinencia tabáquica a los dos meses de tratamiento.
Med Clin (Barc), 116 (2001), pp. 246-250
[17]
P Gariti, AI Alterman, R Ehrman, FD Mulvaney, CP O'Brien.
Detecting smoking following smoking cessation treatment.
Drug Alcohol Depend, 65 (2002), pp. 191-196
[18]
J Prignot.
Quantification and chemical markers of tobacco-exposure.
Eur J RespirDis., 70 (1987), pp. 1-7
[19]
SM Glynn, CL Gruder, JA Jegerski.
Effects of biochemical validation of self-reported cigarette smoking on treatment success and on misreporting abstinence.
Health Psychol., 5 (1986), pp. 125-136
[20]
RP Murray, JE Connett, GG Lauger, HT Voelker.
Error in smoking measures: effects of intervention on relations of cotinine and carbon monoxide to self-reported smoking. The Lung Health Study Research Group.
Am J Public Health, 83 (1993), pp. 1251-1257
[21]
WE Velicer, JO Prochaska, JS Rossi, MG Snow.
Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies.
Psychol Bul., 11 (1992), pp. 23-41
[22]
RP Murray, JE Connet, JA Istvan, MA Nides, S Rempel-Rossum.
Relations of cotinine and carbon monoxide to self-reported smoking in a cohort of smokers and ex-smokers followed over 5 years.
Nicotine Tob Res., 4 (2002), pp. 287-294
[23]
E Vartiainen, T Séppala, P Lillsunde, P Puska.
Validation of self reported smoking by serum cotinine measurement in a community-based study.
J Epidemiol Community Health, 56 (2002), pp. 167-170
[24]
R Wood-Baker.
Outcome of a smoking cessation programme run in a routine hospital setting.
Inter J Med., 32 (2002), pp. 24-28
[25]
E Becoña, FL Vázquez.
Self-reported smoking and measurement of expired air carbon monoxide in a clinical treatment.
Psychol Rep., 83 (1998), pp. 316-318
Copyright © 2005. Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR)
Archivos de Bronconeumología
Article options
Tools

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?