MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310946440 · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00052

Pregnant and postnatal women’s experiences of interacting with health care providers about their tobacco smoking: a qualitative systematic review

2022· review· en· W4310946440 sur OpenAlexaff
Sandra P. Small, Joy Maddigan, Michelle Swab, Kimberly Jarvis

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2022
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Établissements canadiensMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCINAHLMedicinePregnancySmoking cessationPsychological interventionHealth careFamily medicineMEDLINECritical appraisalPrenatal careQualitative researchNursingAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthPopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was twofold: i) to comprehensively identify the best available evidence about the experiences of women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy or postnatally (or both) concerning health care providers' interactions with them about their smoking, when such interactions occurred during contact for prenatal or postnatal health care in any health care setting; and ii) to synthesize the research findings for recommendations to strengthen health care providers' interventions regarding smoking during pregnancy and smoking during the postnatal period. INTRODUCTION: Maternal tobacco smoking during pregnancy and maternal tobacco smoking postnatally pose serious health risks for the woman, fetus, and offspring, whereas maternal smoking cessation has beneficial health effects. Given the importance of health care providers' interactions with pregnant and postnatal women for smoking cessation care, it is essential to understand women's experiences of such interactions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies considered for this review had qualitative research findings about the experiences of women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy or postnatally (or both) in relation to health care providers' interactions with them about their smoking. METHODS: The review was conducted using the JBI approach to qualitative systematic reviews. Published studies were sought through 6 academic databases (eg, CINAHL, MEDLINE). Unpublished studies were searched in 6 gray literature sources (eg, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar). Reference lists of retrieved records were also searched. The searches occurred in October and November 2020; no country, language, or date limits were applied. Study selection involved title and abstract screening, full-text examination, and critical appraisal of all studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Study characteristics and research findings were extracted from the included studies. Study selection and extraction of findings were conducted by 2 reviewers independently; differences between reviewers were resolved through consensus. The research findings were categorized, and the categories were aggregated into a set of synthesized findings. The synthesized findings were assigned confidence scores. The categories and finalized synthesized findings were agreed upon by all reviewers. RESULTS: The 57 included studies varied in qualitative research designs and in methodological quality (from mostly low to high). There were approximately 1092 eligible participants, and 250 credible and unequivocal research findings. The research findings yielded 14 categories and 6 synthesized findings with low to very low confidence scores. Some women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy and some women who smoked tobacco postnatally lacked supportive interactions by health care providers regarding their smoking; other women experienced supportive interactions by health care providers. Women were adversely impacted when health care providers' interactions lacked supportiveness, and were beneficially impacted when interactions were supportive. Women varied in openness to health care providers' interactions regarding their smoking, from not being receptive to being accepting, and some women wanted meaningful health care provider interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Although confidence in the synthesized findings is low to very low, the evidence indicates that supportive health care provider interactions may facilitate positive smoking behavior change in pregnancy and postnatally. It is recommended that health care providers implement accepted clinical practice guidelines with women who smoke prenatally or postnatally, using an approach that is person-centered, emotionally supportive, engaging (eg, understanding), and non-authoritarian. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020178866.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
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 enseignants0,136
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,405
Écart entre enseignants0,346 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations5
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetSmoking Behavior and CessationTravaux en français237 207