Assessing smoking status in disadvantaged populations: Is computer administered self report an accurate and acceptable measure?

25Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Self report of smoking status is potentially unreliable in certain situations and in high-risk populations. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and acceptability of computer administered self-report of smoking status among a low socioeconomic (SES) population. Methods. Clients attending a community service organisation for welfare support were invited to complete a cross-sectional touch screen computer health survey. Following survey completion, participants were invited to provide a breath sample to measure exposure to tobacco smoke in expired air. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. Results: Three hundred and eighty three participants completed the health survey, and 330 (86%) provided a breath sample. Of participants included in the validation analysis, 59% reported being a daily or occasional smoker. Sensitivity was 94.4% and specificity 92.8%. The positive and negative predictive values were 94.9% and 92.0% respectively. The majority of participants reported that the touch screen survey was both enjoyable (79%) and easy (88%) to complete. Conclusions: Computer administered self report is both acceptable and accurate as a method of assessing smoking status among low SES smokers in a community setting. Routine collection of health information using touch-screen computer has the potential to identify smokers and increase provision of support and referral in the community setting. © 2011 Bryant et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bryant, J., Bonevski, B., Paul, C., & Lecathelinais, C. (2011). Assessing smoking status in disadvantaged populations: Is computer administered self report an accurate and acceptable measure? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-153

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free