article · PLoS ONE
BACKGROUND: Smoking is one of the modifiable risk factors of non-communicable diseases and cause of premature death. Surveillance is most often based on self-reported data among adolescents, but few studies have measured exhale breath using Carbon Monoxide in them. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of smoking by measuring exhaled Breath Carbon Monoxide Threshold Levels and Self-Reported Cigarette Smoking in a sample of in-school adolescents in Osun State Nigeria. METHODS: The study employed a descriptive, cross sectional study design, a multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 616 adolescents from selected secondary schools in Osun State. Smoking status of adolescents were measured using Smokerlyzer, and WHO STEPwise questionnaire. The Cut-off point for current smokers using the exhale level of carbon monoxide (eBco) was ≥ 10parts per million. The collected data were entered into SPSS version 20 software for statistical analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were done to identify the true effect of predictor variables on the outcome variable. Statistical significance was declared at a p-value < 0.05. FINDINGS: Smoking by self- report was 80 (13.0%) while the smokerlyzer detected 168 (27.3%) current smokers. Cohen's κ = 0.063 (smokerlyzer) showed poor agreement between self-report and objective measures. Determinants of smoking include older age (AOR = 1.59, CI = 1.01-2.34), class level, compared with students in JSS1, SSS1 (AOR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07-0.26), and SSS2 (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23-0.78) were significantly less likely to smoke. Rank regression analysis revealed that age was negatively associated with the rank of smoking status (B = -0.10, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of smoking using smokerlyzer was higher compared to self-report among in-school adolescents. The study identified older age and class as important predictors of smoking Targeted health education should be done in schools to enhance smoking cessation.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347739
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.