背景:怀孕期间二手烟(SHS)暴露与不良分娩结局有关,例如低出生体重和早产。虽然问卷通常用于评估SHS暴露,他们捕捉真实曝光的能力可能会有所不同,使研究人员难以协调SHS措施。这项研究旨在将自我报告的SHS暴露与孕妇个人样本中的空气SHS测量结果进行比较。
方法:SHS是在从204名孕妇收集的48小时综合个人PM2.5Teflon过滤器上测量的,并通过问卷调查获得自我报告的SHS暴露措施。计算了机载SHS测量的描述性统计数据,和方差分析通过自我报告的SHS暴露评估了空气中SHS浓度的组差异。
结果:参与者为81%的西班牙裔,平均(SD)年龄为28.2(6.0)岁。几何平均(SD)个人空气中SHS浓度为0.14(9.41)µg/m3。报告受教育程度较低的参与者的空中SHS暴露率明显较高(p=0.015)。在报告持续时间较长且家中打开窗户的人中,平均空气中的SHS浓度更高。空气中的SHS和自我报告的SHS暴露之间没有关联;然而,在48小时监测期内询问附近吸烟者的数量与测得的机载SHS最相关(两个以上吸烟者:0.30µg/m3与一个:0.12µg/m3,零:0.15µg/m3;p=0.230)。
结论:自我报告的SHS暴露与个人PM2.5样本中测得的空气SHS无关。这表明使用SHS问卷进行暴露错误分类,并且需要协调和验证的问题来表征健康研究中的这种暴露。
结论:这项研究增加了越来越多的证据,表明测量误差是妊娠研究中的主要问题,特别是在依靠自我报告问卷来测量二手烟(SHS)暴露的研究中。该研究介绍了一种使用客观光学测量进行SHS暴露评估的替代方法,这有助于提高暴露评估的准确性。研究结果强调了在妊娠健康研究中使用协调和有效的SHS问卷的重要性,以避免有偏差的效应估计。这项研究可以为未来的研究提供信息,实践,和政策制定,以减少SHS暴露及其对健康的不利影响。
BACKGROUND: Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure during pregnancy is linked to adverse birth outcomes, such as low birth weight and preterm birth. While questionnaires are commonly used to assess SHS exposure, their ability to capture true exposure can vary, making it difficult for researchers to harmonize SHS measures. This
study aimed to compare self-reported SHS exposure with measurements of airborne SHS in personal samples of pregnant women.
METHODS: SHS was measured on 48-hour integrated personal PM2.5 Teflon filters collected from 204 pregnant women, and self-reported SHS exposure measures were obtained via questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were calculated for airborne SHS measures, and analysis of variance tests assessed group differences in airborne SHS concentrations by self-reported SHS exposure.
RESULTS: Participants were 81% Hispanic, with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 28.2 (6.0) years. Geometric mean (SD) personal airborne SHS concentrations were 0.14 (9.41) µg/m3. Participants reporting lower education have significantly higher airborne SHS exposure (p = .015). Mean airborne SHS concentrations were greater in those reporting longer duration with windows open in the home. There was no association between airborne SHS and self-reported SHS exposure; however, asking about the number of smokers nearby in the 48-hour monitoring period was most correlated with measured airborne SHS (Two + smokers: 0.30 µg/m3 vs. One: 0.12 µg/m3 and Zero: 0.15 µg/m3; p = .230).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported SHS exposure was not associated with measured airborne SHS in personal PM2.5 samples. This suggests exposure misclassification using SHS questionnaires and the need for harmonized and validated questions to characterize this exposure in health studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This
study adds to the growing body of evidence that measurement error is a major concern in pregnancy research, particularly in studies that rely on self-report questionnaires to measure SHS exposure. The
study introduces an alternative method of SHS exposure assessment using objective optical measurements, which can help improve the accuracy of exposure assessment. The findings emphasize the importance of using harmonized and validated SHS questionnaires in pregnancy health research to avoid biased effect estimates. This
study can inform future research, practice, and policy development to reduce SHS exposure and its adverse health effects.