Partner Support for Smoking Cessation During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy is a key time to leverage receptivity to smoking reduction or cessation in both pregnant women and their partners. A partner's smoking status and support for the pregnant/postpartum woman's efforts to reduce or quit smoking may impact her smoking behavior. METHODS: A systematic literature review of interventions to enhance partner support for pregnant/postpartum women's smoking reduction or cessation and cessation treatments for the partners themselves identified 855 unique references, which were examined for relevance, yielding 9 intervention studies. RESULTS: This narrative review analyzed a range of interventions including mass media campaigns, ultrasound scans, video, self-help manuals, counselling, and nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) aimed at pregnant women and/or their partners. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed significant results for an intervention, which included a partner-targeted component in which pregnant women received health counselling, video and printed information, while partners received a booklet explaining the importance of quitting together. Three studies (1 RCT cluster, 1 pre-post test, 1 RCT) demonstrated no effect in improving smoking cessation among pregnant women. Two RCTs included free NRTs, telephone counselling, and multiple contacts as components of effective intervention for male partners, but impact on overall quit rates may not be sustainable postpartum. Seven studies (4 pre-post test, 2 RCT, 1 RCT cluster) found no effect of the intervention on partner smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of partner smoking, there are very few effective smoking cessation interventions for pregnant/postpartum women that include or target male partners, suggesting the need for further intervention development and research to establish the utility of this approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".