Evaluating environmental tobacco smoke exposure in a group of Turkish primary school students and developing intervention methods for prevention

Abstract

Background: In countries like Turkey where smoking is highly prevalent, children's exposure to tobacco smoke is an important public health problem. The goals of this study were to determine the self-reported environmental tobacco smoke exposure status of primary school students in grades 3 to 5, to verify self-reported exposure levels with data provided from a biomarker of exposure, and to develop methods for preventing school children from passive smoking.

Methods: The study was conducted on 347 primary school students by using a standard questionnaire and urinary cotinine tests. Children with verified ETS exposure were randomly assigned to 2 intervention groups. Two phone interviews were conducted with the parents of the first group regarding their children's passive smoking status and its possible consequences. On the other hand, a brief note concerning urinary cotinine test result was sent to parents of the second group. Nine months after the initial urinary cotinine tests, measurements were repeated in both groups.

Results: According to questionnaire data, 59.9% of the study group (208 of 347) were exposed to ETS. Urinary cotinine measurements of children were highly consistent with the self-reported exposure levels (P < 0.001). Two different intervention methods were applied to parents of the exposed children. Control tests suggested a remarkable reduction in the proportion of those children demonstrating a recent exposure to ETS in both groups. Proportions of children with urinary cotinine concentrations 10 ng/ml or lower were 79.5% in Group I and 74.2% in Group II (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Self-reported ETS exposure was found to be pretty accurate in the 9-11 age group when checked with urinary cotinine tests. Only informing parents that their children' ETS exposure were confirmed by a laboratory test seems to be very promising in preventing children from ETS.

Figure 1

Distribution of students according to self-reported exposure status and urinary cotinine levels (n = 347).

Figure 2

Comparison of two intervention groups nine months after the initial urinary tests.