RESEARCH PAPER
Figure from article: Validity of the Fagerström...
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Tobacco use and the screening of nicotine dependence using the Fagerström test among adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) is an understudied public health issue. Despite lower reported prevalence relative to the general population, methodological challenges – particularly the suitability of self-reported tools – limit reliable measurement. This study assesses the convergent validity of the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence (FTND) by comparing it with exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), an objective biomarker of recent smoking, in a sample of adults with ID.

Methods:
Data were collected from an observational cross-sectional validation study during 2024, which investigates addictive behaviors, health indicators, and physical activity among adults with ID in northern France. Nurses administered a standardized questionnaire, including the FTND, and measured exhaled CO using a portable analyzer. Associations were examined using correlation analyses and univariable and multivariable linear regressions controlling for sociodemographic and health variables.

Results:
Among 35 people who smoke, FTND scores were positively and strongly correlated with exhaled CO (r=0.540, p<0.001). In adjusted regression models, FTND remained a significantly associated factor of CO levels (0.60; 95% CI: 0.17–1.02), alongside age (0.065; 95% CI: 0.00–0.13), employment in sheltered workshops (1.86; 95% CI: -0.07–3.78), and cognitive support needs (-1.62; 95% CI: -3.51–0.26). Analyses conducted on the full sample, including 68 people who do not smoke, yielded consistent results, with FTND remaining the strongest predictor of exhaled CO.

Conclusions:
The results suggest evidence of validity of the FTND in adults with ID, suggesting that self-report instruments can reliably estimate nicotine dependence when administered with appropriate support. Nevertheless, the interpretation of CO levels in adults with ID should account for age, cognitive support needs, and contextual factors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank all partner centers for their collaboration, including Les Papillons Blancs de Dunkerque, UNAPEI 60 La Liovette, Les Papillons Blancs d’Hazebrouck et Environs, and AFAPEI du Calaisis, as well as DKpulse and Hauts-de-France Addictions. We extend our gratitude to Peggy Langlet, Caroline Pigeon, Robin Turbot, Aurélie Heden, Antoine Desaegher, Sacha Divry, Sébastien Nguyen, and Peggy Le Déaut (UNAPEI HDF), whose support and involvement were essential to the implementation of the POWER PID project. We also thank Ornella Sayumwe for her work as a research assistant on the literature review and preliminary statistical analyses, carried out during her final-year internship at the University of Lille.
FUNDING
This research was funded by the Institut de Recherche en Santé Publique (IReSP) of Inserm, through the French National Fund for the Fight Against Addictions. The project received support under grant agreement No. 2111097-00.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data supporting this research are available from the authors on reasonable request.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.
REFERENCES (22)
1.
WHO. Tobacco fact sheet; 2020. Accessed April 22, 2026. https: //www. who. int/docs/default- source/ campaigns-and-initiatives/world-no-tobacco-day-2020/ wntd-tobacco-fact-sheet.pdf.
 
2.
Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale. Déficiences Intellectuelles. Expertise Collective – Synthèse et Recommandations. Paris: Inserm; 2016:162p.
 
3.
McGuire BE, Daly P, Smyth F. Lifestyle and health behaviors of adults with an intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2007;51(7):497–510. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00915.x.
 
4.
Huxley A, Dalton M, Tsui YYY, Hayhurst KP. Preva- lence of alcohol, smoking, and illicit drug use amongst people with intellectual disabilities: Review. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy. 2019;26(5):365–384. doi:10.1080/09687637.2018.1488949.
 
5.
Ben Lakhdar C, Massin S, Ngugen S. Pour la delegation régionale de Nous Aussi. Consommation de tabac et vapotage chez les personnes en situation de handicap intellectuel: Une enquête dans les Hauts-de-France. Bull Épidémiol Hebd. 2024;22:498–505.
 
6.
Ben Lakhdar C, Massin S. UNAPEI Hauts-de-France. Le Thermomètre de la santé : Usages de tabac, d’alcool et de cannabis chez les personnes en situation de handicap intellectuel. Alcoologie Addictol. 2024;T44 N2:14–22.
 
7.
Twyman L, Bonevski B, Paul C, Bryant J. Perceived barriers to smoking cessation in selected vulnerable groups: A systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative literature. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12): e006414. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006414.
 
8.
Sandberg A, Sköld CM, Grunewald J, Eklund A, Wheelock ÅM. Assessing recent smoking status by measuring exhaled carbon monoxide levels. PLoS ONE. 2011;6( 12): e28864. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028864.
 
9.
Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: A revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991;86(9):1119–1127. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x.
 
10.
Nonnemaker JM, Homsi G. Measurement properties of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence adapted for use in an adolescent sample. Addict Behav. 2007;32(1):181–186. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.03.028.
 
11.
Steinberg ML, Williams JM, Steinberg HR, Krejci JA, Ziedonis DM. Applicability of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence in smokers with schizophrenia. Addict Behav. 2005;30(1):49–59. doi:10.1016/j. addbeh.2004.04.012.
 
12.
Belguith Sriha A, et al. Nicotine dependence and carbon monoxide intoxication among adult smokers. La Tunisie Médicale. 2015;93(4):231–236.
 
13.
Sugavanesh P, Pushpanjali K. Nicotine dependence, its risk indicators, and exhaled carbon monoxide levels among the smokers in Bengaluru, India. Indian J Community Med. 2018;43(3):220–223. doi:10.4103/ ijcm.IJCM_98_18.
 
14.
European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union. 2016;119:1-88. Accessed April 22, 2026. https://eur-lex. europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.
 
15.
Adab P, Pallan M, Whincup PH. Is BMI the best measure of obesity? BMJ. 2018;360: k1274. doi:10.1136/bmj.k1274.
 
16.
Çakir Altinyaprak E, Fidanci İ, Kumbaroğlu FB, Düger T. Evaluation of the effects of addiction levels and physical activity capacities of smokers on exhaled carbon monoxide level. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2025;26:e46. doi:10.1017/S1463423625100108.
 
17.
Jubber AS. Respiratory complications of obesity. Int J Clin Pract. 2004;58(6):573–580. doi:10.1111/j.1368-2004.00166.x.
 
18.
Holley AB, Carbone T, Holtzclaw AW, et al. Obesity- related changes in diffusing capacity and transfer coefficient of the lung for carbon monoxide and resulting patterns of abnormality across reference equations. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023;20(7):969–975. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.202207-640OC.
 
19.
Tomlinson OW, Duckworth A, Markham L, et al. Body composition, maximal fitness, and submaximal exercise function in people with interstitial lung disease. Respir Res. 2025;26(1):123. doi:10.1186/s12931-025-03195-9.
 
20.
Zavorsky GS, Tesler J, Rucker J, et al. Rates of carbon monoxide elimination in males and females. Physiol Rep. 2014;2(12):e12237. doi:10.14814/phy2.12237.
 
21.
Underner M, Peiffer G. Interprétation des valeurs du CO expiré en tabacologie. Revue des Maladies Respiratoires. 2010;27(4):293–300. doi:10.1016/j.rmr.2009.09.004.
 
22.
Schmidt WFJ, Hoffmeister T, Wachsmuth NB, Byrnes WC. The effect of posture and exercise on blood CO kinetics during the optimized carbon monoxide rebreathing procedure. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2023;83(4):219–226. doi:10.1080/00365513.2023.2204402.
 
eISSN:2459-3087
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top