Nursing interventions to promote smoking cessation during pregnancy: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Smoking during their pregnancy or even through a portion of the pregnancy put the unborn child at risk for many complications during pregnancy and after delivery. Teaching smoking cessation is vital to women of childbearing age. Smoking cessation provides immediate and long-term benefits for pregnant women and their children. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to describe the degree of variability in the methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks of behavioral intervention for smoking cessation during pregnancy. Methods: The design selected for this research is integrative review. Twenty-four articles were reviewed. The inclusion criteria were: (a) studies published between 2000 and 2013, (b) studies published in the English language, (c) a smoking cessation intervention program that targeted pregnant women, and (d) measurement of smoking status after a smoking cessation intervention was implemented. A data extraction tool developed for the purpose of this study utilizing the frameworks of Cooper (1984), and Stetler and colleagues (1998). Results: Seventy percent of the reviewed studies reported either smoking cessation or a reduction in smoking as a result of participating in a smoking cessation program. The reviewed studies confirmed that smoking cessation interventions should begin at the beginning of pregnancy, as early pregnancy is a peak opportunity for education. It is highly beneficial if the interventions last throughout the woman’s pregnancy to ensure smoking cessation through the duration of the post-partum period. Conclusion: The majority of the reviewed interventions proved to be highly beneficial with the reduction in smoking or smoking cessation. Additional research is needed to evaluate individual treatment modalities using a side-by-side comparison. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".