MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2922041717 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003377

Experiences and cessation needs of Indigenous women who smoke during pregnancy: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

2018· review· en· W2922041717 sur OpenAlexaff
Sandra P. Small, Caroline Porr, Michelle Swab, Cynthia Murray

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2018
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCINAHLSmoking cessationIndigenousPregnancyMedicineContext (archaeology)PsycINFOQualitative researchFamily medicineMEDLINEGerontologyPsychological interventionNursingSocial scienceGeographyPolitical scienceSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize the best available evidence to address two questions: i) what is the experience of smoking during pregnancy for Indigenous women? and ii) what are the smoking cessation needs of Indigenous women who smoke during pregnancy? INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy not only affects pregnant women's general health but also causes such serious problems as pre-term delivery, low birth weight, and sudden infant death. Rates of smoking during pregnancy are particularly high among Indigenous women. Learning about Indigenous women's experiences of smoking during pregnancy and associated smoking cessation needs is important to providing informed health care to them. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The participants of interest were Indigenous women who smoked during a current or past pregnancy. The phenomena of interest were the experiences of smoking during pregnancy for Indigenous women and the smoking cessation needs of Indigenous women during pregnancy. The context was any community worldwide where pregnant Indigenous women live. Studies considered for this review were those in which qualitative data were gathered and analysed on the phenomena of interest, including mixed methods research. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted for published studies in academic databases (i.e. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Sociological Abstracts, SocINDEX, and Web of Science), unpublished studies in sources of gray literature (i.e. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, OAIster, LILACS, MedNar, Google, Google Scholar, OpenGrey and relevant websites), and any additional studies in reference lists. Language and date limiters were not applied. The searches included all studies globally and were carried out on October 31, 2016. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality by two reviewers independently, using the criteria of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Descriptive details of each study accepted for this review were extracted in accordance with the elements of the JBI Data Extraction Form for Qualitative Research. The research findings that were relevant to the phenomena of interest and had participant voice were extracted from each included study and synthesized using the JBI meta-aggregative approach. The synthesized findings were assigned confidence scores in accordance with the JBI ConQual approach. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in this review following careful consideration of the methodological quality of each study. The studies yielded a total of 116 research findings, which were grouped into 19 categories and then aggregated to form five synthesized findings. Confidence in the findings was determined to be low to very low (see ConQual Summary of Findings). CONCLUSION: There is a small body of research evidence on Indigenous women's experiences of smoking during pregnancy and their smoking cessation needs. Confidence in the synthesized findings is constrained due to methodological limitations in many of the primary studies included in this review, along with mixed credibility of the research findings from across primary studies.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,026
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,139

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0260,066
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,004
Bibliométrie0,0100,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,196
Tête enseignante GPT0,476
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsMême sujetSmoking Behavior and CessationTravaux en français237 207