Cited by 105Smoking Behavior and CessationMedical Coding and Health InformationSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Smoker, ex-smoker or non-smoker? The validity of routinely recorded smoking status in UK primary care: a cross-sectional study

Open access
Marston, Louise, Carpenter, James R, Walters, Kate R, Morris, Richard W, Nazareth, Irwin, White, Ian R, Petersen, Irene·2014·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: To investigate how smoking status is recorded in UK primary care; to evaluate whether appropriate multiple imputation (MI) of smoking status yields results consistent with health surveys. Setting: UK primary care and a population survey conducted in the community. Participants: We identified 354 204 patients aged 16 or over in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) primary care database registered with their general practice 2008–2009 and 15 102 individuals aged 16 or over in the Health Survey for England (HSE). Outcome measures: Age-standardised and age-specific proportions of smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers in THIN and the HSE before and after MI. Using information on time since quitting in the HSE, we estimated when ex-smokers are typically recorded as non-smokers in primary care records. Results: In THIN, smoking status was recorded for 84% of patients within 1 year of registration. Of these, 28% were smokers (21% in the HSE). After MI of missing smoking data, the proportion of smokers was 25% (missing at random) and 20% (missing not at random). With increasing age, more were identified as ex-smokers in the HSE than THIN. It appears that those who quit before age 30 were less likely to be recorded as an ex-smoker in primary care than people who quit later. Conclusions: Smoking status was relatively well recorded in primary care. Misclassification of ex-smokers as non-smokers is likely to occur in those quitting smoking at an early age and/or a long time ago. Those with no smoking status information are more likely to be ex-smokers or non-smokers than smokers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004958

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marston, L., Carpenter, J. R., Walters, K. R., Morris, R. W., Nazareth, I., White, I. R., & Petersen, I.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Marston, Louise
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-04
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
e004958
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147730333
Cited by
105
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (G0900701)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
smoking status, former smokers, primary care records, data quality, multiple imputation, missing data, misclassification, time since quitting, Health Improvement Network, Health Survey for England, smoking prevalence
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review