↓ Skip to main content

Validity of self-reported intensity of exposure to second-hand smoke at home against environmental and personal markers

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of self-reported intensity of exposure to second-hand smoke at home against environmental and personal markers
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.08.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

José M. Martínez-Sánchez, Adrián González-Marrón, Juan Carlos Martín-Sánchez, Xisca Sureda, Marcela Fu, Raúl Pérez-Ortuño, Cristina Lidón-Moyano, Iñaki Galán, José Antonio Pascual, Esteve Fernández

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the validity of two questions about the perception of intensity of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) at home using as a reference environmental markers (airborne nicotine and benzene) and biomarkers of exposure (cotinine in saliva and urine). This was a cross-sectional study in a convenience sample of 49 non-smoking volunteers. We found a high correlation between self-reported SHS exposure and airborne nicotine (rsp=0.806, p<0.05), salivary cotinine (rsp=0.752, p<0.05), and urinary cotinine (rsp=0.626, p<0.05). We did not find differences between the score question and the conventional ones (p >0.05). In conclusion, the significant correlation of the two questions proposed with environmental markers and personal markers indicates their potential validity to assess exposure to SHS at home.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 6 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 35%
Psychology 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,757,390
of 19,183,540 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#319
of 881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,263
of 429,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,183,540 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 429,799 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.