烟草使用作为戒烟试验纳入标准的生化验证——来自急诊科戒烟试验的经验教训

IF 2.1 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Tobacco Use Insights Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1179173X231193898
Ian Pope, Chandhini Suresh, Emma Ward, Pippa Belderson, Caitlin Notley
{"title":"烟草使用作为戒烟试验纳入标准的生化验证——来自急诊科戒烟试验的经验教训","authors":"Ian Pope,&nbsp;Chandhini Suresh,&nbsp;Emma Ward,&nbsp;Pippa Belderson,&nbsp;Caitlin Notley","doi":"10.1177/1179173X231193898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biochemical verification of smoking status prior to recruitment into smoking cessation trials is widely used to confirm smoking status, most commonly using exhaled carbon monoxide (CO). There is variation in the level of CO used as a biochemical inclusion criterion, and thus the possibility for people reporting to be current smokers to be incorrectly excluded from trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As part of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department, people attending the Emergency Department (ED) who reported being current daily smokers underwent CO testing to confirm eligibility. Elective semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the researchers who recruited participants. As part of the interviews, researchers were asked their views and experiences with CO testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1320 participants who reported being current daily smokers and underwent CO testing, 300 (22.7%) blew a CO reading of 7 ppm or less and were excluded from taking part. Possible explanations offered by researchers for participants blowing low CO readings were (1) long wait times in the ED, therefore a long period having elapsed since people had last smoked and (2) patients having reduced smoking for the period before the ED attendance due to ill health.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Biochemical verification has the potential to improve internal validity of smoking cessation for inclusion in trials, but at the cost of reduced generalisability through exclusion of participants who would receive the intervention if it were implemented in practice. We would recommend researchers carefully consider whether it is appropriate and necessary to include biochemical verification as an inclusion criterion.</p>","PeriodicalId":43361,"journal":{"name":"Tobacco Use Insights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426292/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biochemical Verification of Tobacco-Use as an Inclusion Criterion in Smoking Cessation Trials- Lessons From the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department.\",\"authors\":\"Ian Pope,&nbsp;Chandhini Suresh,&nbsp;Emma Ward,&nbsp;Pippa Belderson,&nbsp;Caitlin Notley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1179173X231193898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biochemical verification of smoking status prior to recruitment into smoking cessation trials is widely used to confirm smoking status, most commonly using exhaled carbon monoxide (CO). There is variation in the level of CO used as a biochemical inclusion criterion, and thus the possibility for people reporting to be current smokers to be incorrectly excluded from trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As part of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department, people attending the Emergency Department (ED) who reported being current daily smokers underwent CO testing to confirm eligibility. Elective semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the researchers who recruited participants. As part of the interviews, researchers were asked their views and experiences with CO testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1320 participants who reported being current daily smokers and underwent CO testing, 300 (22.7%) blew a CO reading of 7 ppm or less and were excluded from taking part. Possible explanations offered by researchers for participants blowing low CO readings were (1) long wait times in the ED, therefore a long period having elapsed since people had last smoked and (2) patients having reduced smoking for the period before the ED attendance due to ill health.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Biochemical verification has the potential to improve internal validity of smoking cessation for inclusion in trials, but at the cost of reduced generalisability through exclusion of participants who would receive the intervention if it were implemented in practice. We would recommend researchers carefully consider whether it is appropriate and necessary to include biochemical verification as an inclusion criterion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tobacco Use Insights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426292/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tobacco Use Insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X231193898\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tobacco Use Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X231193898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:戒烟试验招募前的吸烟状况生化验证被广泛用于确认吸烟状况,最常用的是呼出一氧化碳(CO)。作为生化夹杂物标准的一氧化碳水平存在差异,因此报告为当前吸烟者的人有可能被错误地排除在试验之外。方法:作为急诊科戒烟试验的一部分,在急诊科(ED)就诊的每日吸烟者接受CO测试以确认其资格。与招募参与者的研究人员进行了选择性的半结构化访谈。作为访谈的一部分,研究人员被问及他们对CO测试的看法和经验。结果:在1320名报告目前每天吸烟并接受一氧化碳测试的参与者中,300人(22.7%)的一氧化碳读数为7ppm或更低,被排除在外。研究人员对受试者的低一氧化碳读数给出的可能解释是:(1)在急诊科等待时间长,因此人们上一次吸烟已经过去了很长一段时间;(2)由于健康状况不佳,患者在急诊科就诊前减少了吸烟。结论:生化验证有可能提高戒烟纳入试验的内部效度,但代价是排除了如果在实践中实施干预将接受干预的参与者,从而降低了通用性。我们建议研究人员仔细考虑将生化验证作为纳入标准是否合适和必要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Biochemical Verification of Tobacco-Use as an Inclusion Criterion in Smoking Cessation Trials- Lessons From the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department.

Introduction: Biochemical verification of smoking status prior to recruitment into smoking cessation trials is widely used to confirm smoking status, most commonly using exhaled carbon monoxide (CO). There is variation in the level of CO used as a biochemical inclusion criterion, and thus the possibility for people reporting to be current smokers to be incorrectly excluded from trials.

Methods: As part of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in the Emergency Department, people attending the Emergency Department (ED) who reported being current daily smokers underwent CO testing to confirm eligibility. Elective semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the researchers who recruited participants. As part of the interviews, researchers were asked their views and experiences with CO testing.

Results: Of the 1320 participants who reported being current daily smokers and underwent CO testing, 300 (22.7%) blew a CO reading of 7 ppm or less and were excluded from taking part. Possible explanations offered by researchers for participants blowing low CO readings were (1) long wait times in the ED, therefore a long period having elapsed since people had last smoked and (2) patients having reduced smoking for the period before the ED attendance due to ill health.

Conclusions: Biochemical verification has the potential to improve internal validity of smoking cessation for inclusion in trials, but at the cost of reduced generalisability through exclusion of participants who would receive the intervention if it were implemented in practice. We would recommend researchers carefully consider whether it is appropriate and necessary to include biochemical verification as an inclusion criterion.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tobacco Use Insights
Tobacco Use Insights PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
4.50%
发文量
32
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Trends and Disparities in Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking Among US Adolescents and Adults: PATH Study 2013-2021. Tobacco and Nicotine Products Adverse Health Events: Findings From the FDA Safety Reporting Portal. Adolescent E-Cigarette Expectancies: Measure Development and Preliminary Validity of the Electronic Nicotine Vaping Outcomes Measure for Youth. Activity of the Tobacco Industry in Research and Scientific Literature. The Economic Costs of Tobacco Related Illnesses in Kenya.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1