ArticleSAGE open medicine2017
Self-evaluation of tobacco exposure by allied health students in a community college setting.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTobacco education is among the initiatives encouraged for health professionals to help them appreciate the significance of addressing tobacco use among their patients. In this pilot study, a nicotine biomarker (cotinine) study was introduced to an applied microbiology course required of all allied health students. Participants assessed their own smoking status in the previous 24 h using a two-dimensional experimental design of a questionnaire and rapid urinary cotinine immunoassay. The study goals were >90% participation of the home-administered assay and high correlation of the results to cotinine standards. Allied health students (medical assistants, respiratory therapists, surgical technicians) were selected as the initial test group.
methodsThe study was initiated 10 months after the college became 100% tobacco free. Participants were initially trained on the use and interpretation of the rapid cotinine test using three cotinine standards (0, 400, and 2000 ng/mL urine). Participants subsequently tested their own first-morning urine sample at home and then answered a questionnaire about their tobacco smoke (and/or nicotine) exposure in the previous 24-h period.
resultsThe cotinine laboratory was offered to a total of 161 students (88% female) over 24 months. Participants who reported no exposure to a nicotine product in any venue made up 55% of the group. Daily smokers made up 17% of the study participants as confirmed by their elevated cotinine levels (greater than 100 ng/mL urine). The remaining participants (28%) either resided with smokers and/or rode in an automobile with an individual smoking in the previous 24 h. Their cotinine levels were moderately elevated in some cases, particularly if they had ridden in a car with a smoker.
conclusionThe pilot study met our objectives of >90% participation and high correlation of urinary cotinine levels with questionnaire self-reports.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.