The description and evaluation of a longitudinal pilot study of a smoking relapse/reduction intervention for perinatal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up to 70% of women who quit smoking while pregnant will relapse during the first postnatal year. In this study, a community-based, ecological approach guided the development and implementation of a smoking cessation intervention for perinatal women. AIMS: The aims of this pilot project were to: (1) develop and implement a community-based intervention to assist women to stop smoking or prevent smoking relapse during the pre- and postnatal periods, (2) provide feedback on participants' perceptions of the helpfulness of the intervention, (3) compare perceptions of the helpfulness of the intervention between women who received the intervention during the prenatal vs. postnatal periods, and (4) identify additional components of the intervention which need to be included in future research. DESIGN/METHODS: Using a participative process and a detailed review of the literature, researchers, health care professionals and women (pregnant or postnatal) developed a multifaceted intervention. The intervention included four core components, which all women received: home visit by the intervention nurse, follow-up telephone call(s), resource package, and letter of congratulations. Additional optional components included: telephone help line, support groups, referrals and other services. Forty-two women who were pregnant or had recently delivered participated. Descriptive and evaluation data were collected from participants using questionnaires and telephone interviews. The research was approved by the university Research Ethics Board. FINDINGS: Participants found the core components of the intervention to be helpful in their smoking cessation goals, particularly the home visit and resource material. The support groups and smoking help line were not used. There were no differences in how helpful the components of the intervention were perceived to be between women who received it in the prenatal or postnatal periods. CONCLUSIONS: Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".