Smoking in Pregnancy Among Indigenous Women in High-Income Countries: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women in socioeconomically disadvantaged circumstances, such as Indigenous women, have a high prevalence of smoking. Tobacco smoking is the most significant reversible risk factor for the health of Indigenous pregnant women and their babies. METHODS: As researchers working in this specialized area, we conducted a narrative review of the literature on smoking among Indigenous pregnant women in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. We summarize prevalence and factors influencing tobacco use, interventions, and evidence gaps for tobacco control and smoking cessation. Recommendations are made for future interventions, policy changes, and much-needed research. RESULTS: Common themes emerging across the four countries reveal opportunities for cross-cultural collaborative studies and trials. These include the social-normative use of tobacco as barriers to quitting in pregnancy and the need for evaluations of interventions at the family and community level. Socioeconomic disparities underscore the importance of enhancing the implementation and reach of strategies to prevent and reduce prenatal tobacco smoking among Indigenous women. Elders and community health care providers as role models for nontobacco use could be explored. Qualitative work is needed to understand the barriers and opportunities, such as cultural strengths supporting quitting tobacco to develop more effective approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Although a high-priority group, there remains a dearth of research on Indigenous women's smoking in pregnancy. Studies have assessed knowledge and attitudes to smoking in pregnancy, and small feasibility studies and a few empirical trials have been conducted. Recommendations for promising culturally appropriate cessation interventions have been made. Larger trials are warranted. IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to support quitting among pregnant Indigenous women need to be multifactorial and take account of the social determinants of smoking including historical antecedents, community norms, cultural strengths, and recognition of individual and community needs. Cross-country research collaborations have the potential to leverage funding, share expertise, and strengthen approaches to tackle an important and poorly attended health disparity that has a profound impact on the entire life course for Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".