ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2000
A comparison of individual and population smoking data from a postal survey and general practice records.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial.British journal of cancer · 2006Trial
- Stillbirth Among Women Prescribed Nicotine Replacement Therapy in Pregnancy: Analysis of a Large UK Pregnancy Cohort.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019Article
- Patient-physician agreement on tobacco and alcohol consumption: a multilevel analysis of GPs' characteristics.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Use of practice-based research network data to measure neighborhood smoking prevalence.Preventing chronic disease · 2013Article
- Completeness of maternal smoking status recording during pregnancy in United Kingdom primary care data.PloS one · 2013Article
- Do financial incentives for delivering health promotion counselling work? Analysis of smoking cessation activities stimulated by the quality and outcomes framework.BMC public health · 2010Article
- Trends in COPD prevalence and exacerbation rates in Dutch primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
- The potential to improve ascertainment and intervention to reduce smoking in primary care: a cross sectional survey.BMC health services research · 2008Article
- Comparison of the smoking behaviour and attitudes of smokers who attribute respiratory symptoms to smoking with those who do not.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on smoking held by general practitioners (GPs) may contribute to clinical care and to an assessment of population health. However, these data are prone to several biases and their validity has not been tested.
aimTo examine the accuracy of general practice data as an estimate for population prevalence of smoking and to estimate the accuracy of GP data on individuals' smoking habit compared with self-report.
methodsA postal questionnaire on smoking habit over the past six years was sent to a random sample of individuals aged 15 to 74 years and registered with five out of seven general practices in one part of Leicester. GP records of those sampled were examined for an entry of smoking status over this period.
resultsResponse rate to the postal questionnaire was 1906 out of 2490 (76.5%). Reported smoking prevalence was 35.2%. Of those notes sampled, 1784 out of 2432 (73.4%) had an entry about smoking recorded between 1991 and 1996. Patients recorded as smokers were less likely to respond to the postal questionnaire than non-smokers. Using practice data to ascribe smoking status to non-responders produced an estimated prevalence of 38.6%. Using questionnaire data alone as the 'gold standard', the last practice record collected since 1991 overestimated current smoking prevalence by a factor of 1.22; using questionnaire data supplemented by practice data for non-responders as the 'gold standard' meant that the overestimate was by a factor of 1.11. Data from notes and the questionnaire were available for 1398 individuals and 2188 observations. Levels of agreement were high (kappa = 0.83).
conclusionGP-held data are valid for individuals but over-estimate smoking prevalence at a population level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10962784PMC1313724What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.