2016
DOI: 10.1177/1359105314560917
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Self-report distortions of puffing topography in daily smokers

Abstract: Under-reporting tobacco consumption is common, although there is lack of evidence whether under-reporting is associated with health risk perception. In this study, smoking topography from 110 smokers was recorded over 24 hours, aiming to capture a representative average of smoking behaviour. Participants significantly under-reported the duration of secondary exposure, and there was a significant interaction between self-report distortion type and risk perception. Analysis showed that smokers under-reporting pu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding puff count, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test result shows that 85% of the smokers underestimate the puff number per cigarette. This finding is consistent with the results of Pulcu [ 16 ] with English smokers under-reporting puff numbers in a self-report survey. Similarly, 86% of smokers under-reported the total smoking time in the self-report survey.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Regarding puff count, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test result shows that 85% of the smokers underestimate the puff number per cigarette. This finding is consistent with the results of Pulcu [ 16 ] with English smokers under-reporting puff numbers in a self-report survey. Similarly, 86% of smokers under-reported the total smoking time in the self-report survey.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…For any device returned on the second day, raw recorded data downloaded from it and broken puff records, with puff duration <0.05s, were excluded. For each participant, total smoking time was estimated using equation 2 [ 7 , 16 ]. The time to first cigarette (TTFC Device ) is calculated by considering the differences between the reported wake-up time and the device-recorded time of the first cigarette after the reported time.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Measurement error could also be introduced by participants over-reporting traits perceived to be ‘desirable’ such as education and underreporting traits perceived to be ‘undesirable’ such as smoking behaviour. 54 The estimates for all three risk factors together were more similar between observational and mendelian randomisation estimates, although for all models, the confidence intervals were wide. Note that although mendelian randomisation is more robust to measurement error, the instruments might not necessarily be capturing all aspects of the exposure phenotype under consideration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Even though we are not alone in our struggle to recruit a truly representative sample in cross‐cultural research (Olatundun, 2009), future research should try to replicate <edit>our findings in more nationally representative samples. Additionally, our measures were self‐reported, which can result in socially desirable responses (e.g., Pulcu, 2016; Van Bussel, Spitz & Demyttenaere, 2010). Even though this can be challenging, future research could aim to include responses from fathers and mothers in addition to early adolescents’ self‐report to obtain parents’ perspectives on the parent‐child relationship across different countries (see Lansford et al ., 2018 for an example).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%