Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Oct 29:339:b4347.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4347.

Reliability of self reported smoking status by pregnant women for estimating smoking prevalence: a retrospective, cross sectional study

Deborah Shipton  1 , David M Tappin, Thenmalar Vadiveloo, Jennifer A Crossley, David A Aitken, Jim Chalmers
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Reliability of self reported smoking status by pregnant women for estimating smoking prevalence: a retrospective, cross sectional study

Deborah Shipton et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine what impact reliance on self reported smoking status during pregnancy has on both the accuracy of smoking prevalence figures and access to smoking cessation services for pregnant women in Scotland.

Design: Retrospective, cross sectional study of cotinine measurements in stored blood samples.

Participants: Random sample (n=3475) of the 21 029 pregnant women in the West of Scotland who opted for second trimester prenatal screening over a one year period.

Main outcome measure: Smoking status validated with cotinine measurement by maternal area deprivation category (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation).

Results: Reliance on self reported smoking status underestimated true smoking by 25% (1046/3475 (30%) from cotinine measurement v 839/3475 (24%) from self reporting, z score 8.27, P<0.001). Projected figures suggest that in Scotland more than 2400 pregnant smokers go undetected each year. A greater proportion of smokers in the least deprived areas (deprivation categories 1+2) did not report their smoking (39%) compared with women in the most deprived areas (22% in deprivation categories 4+5), but, because smoking was far more common in the most deprived areas (706 (40%) in deprived areas compared with 142 (14%) in affluent areas), projected figures for Scotland suggest that twice as many women in the most deprived areas are undetected (n=1196) than in the least deprived areas (n=642).

Conclusion: Reliance on self reporting to identify pregnant smokers significantly underestimates the number of pregnant smokers in Scotland and results in a failure to detect over 2400 smokers each year who are therefore not offered smoking cessation services.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Selection of study sample for cotinine analysis
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Giovino GA. The tobacco epidemic in the United States. Am J Prev Med 2007;33:S318-26. - PubMed
    1. Information Services Division, NHS Scotland. Births and babies: smoking and pregnancy. 2009. www.isdscotland.org/isd/2911.html.
    1. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Infant feeding survey 2005: a commentary on infant feeding practices in the UK. Stationery Office, 2009.
    1. Corbet J, MacLeod P, Martin C, Hope S. Scotland’s people: results from the 2005 Scottish Household Survey. Annual report. Scottish Executive, 2006.
    1. Russell T, Crawford M, Woodby L. Measurements for active cigarette smoke exposure in prevalence and cessation studies: why simply asking pregnant women isn’t enough. Nicotine Tob Res 2004;6(suppl 2):S141-51. - PubMed

Publication types