Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Urine Cotinine-Verified Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure among Rural Pregnant Women in China
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Population
2.2. Assessment of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Exposure Based on Self-Reports
2.3. Urine Biomarkers of ETS Exposure
2.4. Demographic Information
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Pregnant Women Characteristics
3.2. Discrepancy between SR and UC-Verified ETS Exposure
3.3. Predictors Associated with the Discrepancy between Rates of Self-Reported and Urinary Cotinine-Verified ETS Exposure
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Huynh, M.; Woodruff, T.J.; Parker, J.D.; Schoendorf, K.C. Relationships between air pollution and preterm birth in California. Paediatr. Périnat. Epidemiol. 2006, 20, 454–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hamilton, B.E.; Miniño, A.M.; Martin, J.A.; Kochanek, K.D.; Strobino, D.M.; Guyer, B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2005. Pediatrics 2007, 119, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Protano, C.; Vitali, M. The new danger of thirdhand smoke: Why passive smoking does not stop at secondhand smoke. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011, 119, A422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Policy Recommendations on Protection from Exposure to Second-Hand Tobacco Smoke; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Matt, G.E.; Quintana, P.J.; Destaillats, H.; Gundel, L.A.; Sleiman, M.; Singer, B.C.; Jacob, P.; Benowitz, N.; Winickoff, J.P.; Rehan, V.; et al. Thirdhand tobacco smoke: Emerging evidence and arguments for a multidisciplinary research agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011, 119, 1218–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winickoff, J.P.; Friebely, J.; Tanski, S.E.; Sherrod, C.; Matt, G.E.; Hovell, M.F.; McMillen, R.C. Beliefs About the Health Effects of Thirdhand Smoke and Home Smoking Bans. Pediatrics 2009, 123, e74–e79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cui, H.; Gong, T.-T.; Liu, C.-X.; Wu, Q.-J. Associations between Passive Maternal Smoking during Pregnancy and Preterm Birth: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General; Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
- Leonardi-Bee, J.; Britton, J.; Venn, A. Secondhand smoke and adverse fetal outcomes in nonsmoking pregnant women: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2011, 127, 734–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gonghuan, Y.; Jieming, M.; Na, L.; Lingni, Z. Smoking and passive smoking in Chinese, 2002. Chin. J. Epidemiol. 2005, 26, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, L.; Yang, Y.; Li, Q.; Wang, C.X.; Yang, G.H. Population-based survey of secondhand smoke exposure in China. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2010, 23, 430–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China. China Report on the Health Hazards of Smoking Executive Summary; Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2012.
- Lei, Y.; Liu, W.; Fang, L.; Akash, M.S.H.; Rehman, K.; Hua, N.; Shi, W.; Lu, W.; Xu, Y.; Chen, S. Assessment of urinary concentration of cotinine in Chinese pregnant women exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2014, 59, 1386–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markovic, N.; Ness, R.B.; Cefilli, D.; Grisso, J.A.; Stahmer, S.; Shaw, L.M. Substance use measures among women in early pregnancy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000, 183, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Connor, G.S.; Schofield-Hurwitz, S.; Hardt, J.; Levasseur, G.; Tremblay, M. The accuracy of self-reported smoking: A systematic review of the relationship between self-reported and cotinine-assessed smoking status. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2009, 11, 12–24. [Google Scholar]
- Kristin, A.; Amanda, W.; Emily, R.; Sara, A.; Amanda, F.; Rayens, M.K. Perinatal Biochemical Confirmation of Smoking Status by Trimester. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2017, 19, 631–635. [Google Scholar]
- George, L.; Granath, F.; Johansson, A.L.V.; Cnattingius, S. Self-reported nicotine exposure and plasma levels of cotinine in early and late pregnancy. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2006, 85, 1331–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Webb, D.A.; Boyd, N.R.; Messina, D.; Windsor, R.A. The discrepancy between self-reported smoking status and urine continine levels among women enrolled in prenatal care at four publicly funded clinical sites. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2003, 9, 322–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hwang, J.; Kim, J.; Lee, D.; Jung, H.; Park, S.-W. Underestimation of Self-Reported Smoking Prevalence in Korean Adolescents: Evidence from Gold Standard by Combined Method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valladolidlópez, M.D.C.; Barrientosgutiérrez, T.; Reynalesshigematsu, L.M.; Thrasher, J.F.; Peláezballestas, I.; Lazcanoponce, E.; Hernándezávila, M. Evaluating the validity of self-reported smoking in Mexican adolescents. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e007485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jeong, I.S.; Park, N.R.; Ham, J. Agreement between Smoking Self-report and Urine Cotinine among Adolescents. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 2004, 37, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Collins, B.N.; Nair, U.S.; Hovell, M.F.; DiSantis, K.I.; Jaffe, K.; Tolley, N.M.; Wileyto, E.P.; Audrain-McGovern, J. Reducing Underserved Children’s Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Randomized Counseling Trial With Maternal Smokers. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 49, 534–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ma, Y.; Goins, K.V.; Pbert, L.; Ockene, J.K. Predictors of Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy and Maintenance Postpartum in Low-Income Women. Mater. Child Health J. 2005, 9, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernert, J.T.; McGuffey, J.E.; Morrison, M.A.; Pirkle, J.L. Comparison of serum and salivary cotinine measurements by a sensitive high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method as an indicator of exposure to tobacco smoke among smokers and nonsmokers. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2000, 24, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Britton, G.R.; Brinthaupt, J.; Stehle, J.M.; James, G.D. Comparison of self-reported smoking and urinary cotinine levels in a rural pregnant population. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 2004, 33, 306–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xia, X.; Qin, Q.; Qin, X.; Meng, Y.; Hong, C.; Xiao, L.L. Investigation and analysis on passive smoking among pregnant women during perinatal period. Mater. Child Health Care China 2016, 13, 2709–2711. [Google Scholar]
- Wigginton, B.; Lee, C. Stigma and hostility towards pregnant smokers: Does individuating information reduce the effect? Psychol. Health 2013, 28, 862–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yuka, H.; Kazutomo, O. Reduction of tobacco smoke exposure for pregnant passive smokers using feedback of urinary cotinine test results. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2014, 40, 1015–1022. [Google Scholar]
- Benowitz, N.L.; Jacob, P., III; Ahijevych, K.; Jarvis, M.J.; Hall, S.; LeHouezec, J.; Hansson, A.; Lichtenstein, E.; Henningfield, J.; Tsoh, J.; et al. Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2002, 4, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | Township 1 (n = 181) | Township 2 (n = 239) | Total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Age | ||||||
15–19 years | 27 | 14.92 | 27 | 11.30 | 54 | 12.86 |
20–25 years | 93 | 51.38 | 118 | 49.37 | 211 | 50.24 |
26–30 years | 37 | 20.44 | 60 | 25.10 | 97 | 23.10 |
31–35 years | 18 | 9.94 | 24 | 10.04 | 42 | 10.00 |
36 years and above | 6 | 3.31 | 10 | 4.18 | 16 | 3.81 |
Ethnic groups | ||||||
Han | 152 | 83.98 | 204 | 85.36 | 356 | 84.76 |
Non-Han | 29 | 16.04 | 35 | 14.64 | 64 | 15.24 |
Occupation | ||||||
Farmer | 119 | 65.75 | 217 | 90.79 | 336 | 80.0 |
Non-farmer | 62 | 34.25 | 22 | 9.21 | 84 | 20.0 |
Education level | ||||||
6 years and below | 73 | 40.33 | 68 | 28.45 | 141 | 33.57 |
7–9 years | 83 | 45.86 | 136 | 56.90 | 219 | 52.14 |
10 years and above | 25 | 13.81 | 35 | 14.64 | 60 | 14.29 |
Husband’s ethnicity | ||||||
Han | 157 | 86.74 | 212 | 88.70 | 369 | 87.86 |
Non-Han | 24 | 13.26 | 27 | 11.30 | 51 | 12.14 |
Husband’s occupation | ||||||
Farmer | 81 | 45.25 | 209 | 87.45 | 290 | 69.38 |
Non-farmer | 98 | 54.75 | 30 | 12.55 | 128 | 30.62 |
Husband’s education level | ||||||
6 years and below | 54 | 30.0 | 49 | 20.50 | 103 | 24.58 |
7–9 years | 90 | 50.0 | 163 | 68.22 | 253 | 60.38 |
10 years and above | 36 | 20.0 | 27 | 11.30 | 63 | 15.04 |
Household income (past year) | ||||||
15,000 CNY and below | 53 | 29.28 | 69 | 28.87 | 122 | 29.05 |
15,001–30,000 CNY | 93 | 51.38 | 51 | 21.34 | 144 | 34.29 |
30,001–50,000 CNY | 12 | 6.63 | 31 | 12.97 | 43 | 10.24 |
50,001 CNY and above | 6 | 3.31 | 83 | 34.73 | 89 | 21.19 |
No response | 17 | 9.39 | 5 | 2.09 | 22 | 5.24 |
Variable | First Trimester | Second Trimester | Third Trimester | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SR (%) | Cot. (%) | p-Value a | SR (%) | Cot. (%) | p-Value | SR (%) | Cot. (%) | p-Value | |
Place | |||||||||
Township 1 | 65.19 | 96.13 | <0.001 | 72.93 | 98.34 | <0.001 | 65.75 | 97.79 | <0.001 |
Township 2 | 85.77 | 98.33 | 91.21 | 99.58 | 91.63 | 99.16 | |||
Age | |||||||||
15–19 years | 79.63 | 100.0 | 0.148 | 83.33 | 100.0 | 0.935 | 74.07 | 94.44 | 0.373 |
20–25 years | 72.04 | 97.16 | 82.94 | 99.05 | 80.57 | 99.53 | |||
26–30 years | 81.44 | 95.88 | 84.54 | 98.97 | 80.41 | 97.94 | |||
31–35 years | 80.95 | 97.62 | 80.95 | 97.62 | 83.33 | 100.00 | |||
36 years and above | 93.75 | 100.00 | 87.50 | 100.00 | 93.75 | 100.00 | |||
Ethnic groups | |||||||||
Han | 77.53 | 97.19 | 0.962 | 83.99 | 99.16 | 0.711 | 79.78 | 98.60 | 0.479 |
Non-Han | 73.44 | 98.44 | 79.69 | 98.44 | 84.38 | 98.44 | |||
Occupation | |||||||||
Farmer | 78.87 | 97.02 | 0.103 | 83.63 | 99.11 | 0.605 | 82.14 | 98.51 | 0.251 |
Non-farmer | 69.05 | 98.81 | 82.14 | 98.81 | 73.81 | 98.81 | |||
Education level | |||||||||
6 years and below | 78.01 | 97.16 | 0.208 | 82.98 | 98.58 | 0.018 | 80.85 | 99.29 | 0.079 |
7–9 years | 74.43 | 96.80 | 79.91 | 99.54 | 77.63 | 98.17 | |||
10 years and above | 83.33 | 100.0 | 96.67 | 98.33 | 90.00 | 98.33 | |||
Husband’s occupation | |||||||||
Farmer | 80.34 | 97.93 | 0.002 | 85.86 | 99.31 | 0.012 | 83.79 | 98.97 | 0.011 |
Non-farmer | 68.75 | 96.09 | 77.34 | 98.44 | 72.66 | 97.66 | |||
Husband’s education level | |||||||||
6 years and below | 76.70 | 95.15 | 0.728 | 82.52 | 97.09 | 0.906 | 79.61 | 99.03 | 0.518 |
7–9 years | 77.47 | 97.63 | 83.40 | 99.60 | 79.84 | 98.02 | |||
10 years and above | 74.60 | 100.00 | 84.13 | 100.00 | 84.13 | 100.00 | |||
Household income (last year) | |||||||||
15,000 CNY and below | 74.59 | 95.90 | <0.001 | 86.89 | 100.00 | <0.001 | 81.15 | 98.36 | <0.001 |
15,001–30,000 CNY | 68.75 | 98.61 | 75.00 | 98.61 | 72.92 | 97.92 | |||
30,001–50,000 CNY | 72.09 | 95.35 | 72.09 | 97.67 | 76.74 | 97.67 | |||
50,001 CNY and above | 95.51 | 98.88 | 95.51 | 100.00 | 95.51 | 100.00 | |||
No response | 77.27 | 95.45 | 90.91 | 95.45 | 72.73 | 100.00 | |||
Women’s awareness of passive smoking | |||||||||
Yes | 75.28 | 97.19 | 0.366 | 83.71 | 99.16 | 0.622 | 75.84 | 98.31 | 0.027 |
No | 77.64 | 97.89 | 82.70 | 98.88 | 83.54 | 98.73 | |||
Number of pregnancies | |||||||||
1 | 79.69 | 99.22 | 0.101 | 85.94 | 100.00 | 0.080 | 82.03 | 99.22 | 0.051 |
2 | 77.60 | 97.27 | 83.61 | 98.91 | 83.06 | 97.81 | |||
3 and above | 70.93 | 95.35 | 76.74 | 97.67 | 70.93 | 98.84 | |||
Number of smokers in the family | |||||||||
0 | 93.55 | 97.58 | <0.001 | 96.32 | 98.53 | <0.001 | 89.12 | 97.96 | <0.001 |
1 | 75.65 | 96.37 | 80.00 | 98.97 | 80.66 | 98.34 | |||
2–3 | 59.22 | 99.03 | 70.79 | 100.00 | 66.30 | 100.00 | |||
Total b | 76.90 | 97.38 | 83.33 | 99.05 | 80.48 | 98.57 |
Variable | First Trimester | Second Trimester | Later Pregnancy | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crude OR (95% CIs) | Adjusted OR a (95% CIs) | Crude OR (95% CIs) | Adjusted OR (95% CIs) | Crude OR (95% CIs) | Adjusted OR (95% CIs) | |
Place | ||||||
Township 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Township 1 | 1.49 (0.75–2.96) | 1.64 (0.81–3.34) | 3.25 (1.41–7.50) b | 3.72 (1.56–8.88) b | 3.53 (1.68–7.42) b | 3.51 (1.65–7.47) b |
Husband’s occupation | ||||||
Farmer | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Non-farmer | 1.71 (0.92–3.19) | 1.58 (0.83–3.00) | 1.20 (0.61–2.37) | 1.15 (0.57–2.33) | 1.04 (0.54–1.99) | 1.09 (0.57–2.11) |
Household income last year | ||||||
15,000 CNY and below | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
15,001–30,000 CNY | 1.14 (0.60–2.17) | 1.20 (0.63–2.31) | 2.33 (1.09–4.98) c | 2.40 (1.11–5.21) c | 1.63 (0.83–3.21) | 1.56 (0.79–3.09) |
30,001–50,000 CNY | 1.12 (0.46–2.73) | 1.25 (0.50–3.09) | 4.95 (1.76–13.92) b | 5.09 (1.77–14.68) b | 2.13 (0.82–5.51) | 2.07 (0.79–5.42) |
50,001 CNY and above | 0.11 (0.04–0.34) b | 0.11 (0.04–0.36) b | 0.47 (0.13–1.77) | 0.41 (0.11–1.59) | 0.27 (0.08–0.94) c | 0.28 (0.81–0.98) c |
Number of pregnancies | ||||||
1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
2 | 1.22 (0.63–2.37) | 1.42 (0.70–2.87) | 1.09 (0.52–2.28) | 1.07 (0.48–2.35) | 1.15 (0.57–2.29) | 1.37 (0.65–2.88) |
3 and above | 1.96 (0.89–4.33) | 2.32 (0.93–5.79) | 2.36 (1.02–5.46) | 1.96 (0.73–5.27) | 2.11 (0.95–4.68) | 2.72 (1.08–6.81) c |
Number of smokers in the family | ||||||
0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
1 | 7.73 (2.88–20.74) b | 7.14 (2.64–19.31) b | 5.29 (2.04–13.69) b | 5.01 (1.94–12.96) b | 1.65 (0.82–3.33) | 1.56 (0.76–3.17) |
2–3 | 25.71 (8.94–73.94) b | 24.22 (8.35–70.26) b | 11.78 (4.22–32.86) b | 12.49 (4.45–35.05) b | 5.96 (2.75–12.91) b | 6.10 (2.78–13.39) b |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xiao, X.; Li, Y.; Song, X.; Xu, Q.; Yang, S.; Wu, J.; Seto, E. Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Urine Cotinine-Verified Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure among Rural Pregnant Women in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1499. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071499
Xiao X, Li Y, Song X, Xu Q, Yang S, Wu J, Seto E. Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Urine Cotinine-Verified Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure among Rural Pregnant Women in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(7):1499. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071499
Chicago/Turabian StyleXiao, Xia, Yan Li, Xiaoxiao Song, Qinghua Xu, Siwei Yang, Jie Wu, and Edmund Seto. 2018. "Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Urine Cotinine-Verified Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure among Rural Pregnant Women in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 7: 1499. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071499
APA StyleXiao, X., Li, Y., Song, X., Xu, Q., Yang, S., Wu, J., & Seto, E. (2018). Discrepancy between Self-Reported and Urine Cotinine-Verified Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure among Rural Pregnant Women in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1499. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071499