The Reliability of Smoking History Amongst Survivors of Myocardial Infarction

Ronan, Geoffrey Peter; Ruane, Pierce; Graham, Ian; Hickey, N; Mulcahy, R

doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1981.tb03241.x

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Smoking habits were assessed by self-reports in this study, but good correspondence with proxy information was obtained in a subsample. Other studies from medical-care settings have also reported high agreement between self-reports and objective methods in assessment of smoking (Aberg et al, 1983;Petti, Friedman, & Kahn, 1981;Ronan, Ruane, Graham, Hickey, & Mulcahy, 1981;Scott & Lamparski, 1985). However, it cannot be excluded that the reported rate of quitting may be somewhat exaggerated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Changes in smoking behavior after a myocardial infarction.

Havik¹,

Mæland²

1988

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among 383 participants in a longitudinal study of myocardial infarction (MI) patients, 230 smoked at the time of the MI. Posthospital smoking status was based on self-report for the day of follow-up, whereas information about length of continuous cessation was not available. Six months after the heart attack, 40.6% of the smokers had resumed smoking, whereas 49.4% smoked at a 3- to 5-year (M = 43-month) follow-up. Resumption of smoking within 6 months after the heart attack was associated with an increase in anxiety and depression during the first weeks after discharge, less cardiac health knowledge, and a less severe MI. In patients who relapsed at a later point, resumption of smoking was associated with a subsequent decline in general cardiac health knowledge, as well as in correct understanding of smoking at a risk factor. Long-term changes in smoking status were also related to previous heart disease, premorbid work instability, age, and severity of the MI. The results indicate that antismoking counseling of MI patients should not be limited to the health risks associated with smoking and that training in coping with negative affects without smoking may be valuable in promoting smoking cessation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Changes in smoking behavior after a myocardial infarction.

Havik¹,

Mæland²

1988

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If these 4 samples were combined with the preceding 12 samples, the average rate would increase to 12.09%. Eight samples from five studies were classified as high risk/medical patient samples (Li et al, 1984 [two samples]; Research Committee of the British Thoracic Society, 1983 [two samples]; Ronan, Ruane, Graham, Hickey, & Mulcahy, 1981; Sillett, Wilson, Malcolm, & Bal, 1978 [two samples]; Vogt, Selvin, Widdowson, & Hulley, 1977). The average rate of false negatives was 18.34%.…”

Section: Issues Relating To the Use Of Biochemical Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies.

Velicer¹,

Prochaska²,

Rossi³

et al. 1992

Psychological Bulletin

783

489

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcome measures for smoking cessation are reviewed and evaluated, including 3 self-report measures and 3 biochemical validation measures. Point prevalence reflects the percentage of participants taking action, prolonged abstinence reflects those in the maintenance stage, and continuous abstinence reflects those who progress from action to maintenance without lapsing or relapsing. Biochemical assessments are primarily measures of point prevalence abstinence. The desirability of biochemical validation is a particularly controversial and critical issue. Three factors affect the accuracy of self-report: Type of Population, Type of Intervention, and Demand Characteristics. False-negative rates are generally low. Three broad issues impact on decisions to use biochemical validation: (a) alternative explanations for false positives, (b) refusal rate problems, and (c) the effect of inaccuracy on intervention assessment.

show abstract

“…. Close monitoring intervals and improving rapport between investigators and participants may help in reducing concealment(43).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deception in clinical trials and its impact on recruitment and adherence of study participants

Lee

Holmes

Neri

et al. 2018

Contemporary Clinical Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deceptive practices by participants in clinical research are prevalent. It has been shown that as high as 75% of participants withheld information to avoid exclusion from studies. Self-reported adherence has been found to be largely inaccurate. Overcoming deception is a critical issue, since the safety of study participants, the integrity of research data and research resources are at risk. In this review article, we examine deception from the perspective of investigators conducting clinical trials; we describe the types (concealment, fabrication, drug holidays and collusion), prevalence, risks, and predictors of deception, and propose an approach to reduce the impact of deception, especially on adherence, in clinical trials.

show abstract

The Reliability of Smoking History Amongst Survivors of Myocardial Infarction

Cited by 21 publications

References 5 publications

Changes in smoking behavior after a myocardial infarction.

Changes in smoking behavior after a myocardial infarction.

Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies.

Deception in clinical trials and its impact on recruitment and adherence of study participants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About