The avoidance of asthma triggers, like tobacco smoke, facilitates asthma management. Reliance upon caregiver report of their child’s environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure may result in information bias and impaired asthma management. This analysis aimed to characterize the chronicity of ETS exposure, assess the validity of caregiver report of ETS exposure, and investigate the relationship between ETS exposure and asthma attack.

A secondary data analysis was performed on data from a longitudinal study of 162 children aged 7–12 years with asthma living in federally subsidized housing in three US cities (Boston, Cincinnati, and New Orleans). Data were collected at three time points over 1 year.

Over 90% of children were exposed to ETS (≥0.25 ng/ml of urine cotinine (UC)). Exposure was consistent over 1 year. Questionnaire data had a sensitivity of 28–34% using UC ≥0.25 ng/ml as the gold standard. High ETS exposure (UC ≥ 30 ng/ml) was significantly associated with asthma attack (aOR 2.97, 0.93–9.52, p = 0.07). Lower levels (UC 0.25–30 ng/ml) were not statistically significant (aOR 1.76, 0.71– 4.38, p = 0.22). No association was found using caregiver-reported ETS exposure.

Relying on questionnaire data to assess children’s exposure to tobacco smoke may lead to substantial information bias. For children with asthma, incorrect characterization may substantially impact asthma morbidity.

Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of “access to genomic medicine” is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking.

Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them.

CSER’s enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies.

Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.