Instruments used to evaluate smoking habits: a systematic review

被引:12
|
作者
Pereira dos Santos, Juliana Dias [1 ]
Silveira, Daniel Vitorio [1 ]
de Oliveira, Daniele Falci [1 ]
Caiaffa, Waleska Teixeira [1 ]
机构
[1] Secretaria Municipal Saude Belo Horizonte, BR-30130003 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
来源
CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA | 2011年 / 16卷 / 12期
关键词
Systematic review; Instrument; Smoking; TOBACCO; ATTITUDES;
D O I
10.1590/S1413-81232011001300020
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Smoking is one of the most important causes of illness in the world, responsible for one out of every eight deaths. To know the instruments that characterize the use of tobacco is the first step to develop reliable and comparable research to tackle this challenge. The objective was to identify and compare instruments and domains used in population-based studies over the past five years aiming to determine smoking patterns. A systematic review was conducted on articles published from September 2002 to September 2007. The terms used were: ((star)Smok or tobacco) AND (Questionnaire or scale or score or instrument or assessment or form) AND ((star)cultural(star) or translat(star) or valid(star) or reproduc(star) or psychomet(star)). Out of 2,236 references, 186 articles were selected, of which only 91 informed the instruments used. From the 91 manuscripts, 49 distinct instruments were identified. The main topics were profile and prevalence (38%), dependence (24%) and motivation (10.8%). The researchers used standard instruments in 96% of studies of addiction. The majority of articles about profile and prevalence (79%) used self-developed questionnaires. The transparency and standardization of instruments and the preference for the use of validated questionnaires are crucial areas for quality and reproducibility of research on smoking.
引用
收藏
页码:4707 / 4720
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A systematic literature review to evaluate the tools and methods used to measure rein tension
    Dumbell, Lucy
    Lemon, Chloe
    Williams, Jane
    JOURNAL OF VETERINARY BEHAVIOR-CLINICAL APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH, 2019, 29 : 77 - 87
  • [42] Creation of an inventory of quality markers used to evaluate pharmacokinetic literature: A systematic review
    Soliman, Alaa Bahaa Eldeen
    Pawluk, Shane Ashley
    Wilby, Kyle John
    Rachid, Ousama
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2022, 47 (02) : 178 - 183
  • [43] A systematic review of the methodologies used to evaluate telemedicine service initiatives in hospital facilities
    AlDossary, Sharifah
    Martin-Khan, Melinda G.
    Bradford, Natalie K.
    Smith, Anthony C.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2017, 97 : 171 - 194
  • [44] Title: Methods Used to Evaluate the Health Effects of Social Policies: A Systematic Review
    Emily C. Dore
    Emily Wright
    Justin S. White
    Rita Hamad
    Current Epidemiology Reports, 12 (1)
  • [45] Instruments to evaluate non-technical skills during high fidelity simulation: A systematic review
    Gawronski, Orsola
    Thekkan, Kiara R. R.
    Genna, Catia
    Egman, Sabrina
    Sansone, Vincenza
    Erba, Ilaria
    Vittori, Alessandro
    Varano, Carmelita
    Dall'Oglio, Immacolata
    Tiozzo, Emanuela
    Chiusolo, Fabrizio
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 9
  • [47] Association of cigarette smoking habits with the risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Xiangwei Yang
    Hong Chen
    Shiqiang Zhang
    Xianju Chen
    Yiyu Sheng
    Jun Pang
    BMC Public Health, 23
  • [48] Association of cigarette smoking habits with the risk of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yang, Xiangwei
    Chen, Hong
    Zhang, Shiqiang
    Chen, Xianju
    Sheng, Yiyu
    Pang, Jun
    BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [49] Smoking habits and benign prostatic hyperplasia A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
    Xu, Huan
    Fu, Shi
    Chen, Yanbo
    Chen, Qi
    Gu, Meng
    Wang, Zhong
    MEDICINE, 2016, 95 (32)
  • [50] Misclassification of smoking habits:An updated review of the literature
    Janette S Hamling
    Katharine J Coombs
    Peter N Lee
    World Journal of Meta-Analysis, 2019, (02) : 31 - 50