A pilot study of the Tobacco Treatment Guidelines for High-Risk Groups (TOB-G) for pregnant and postpartum women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Maternal smoking constitutes a significant risk to the fetus and is associated with multiple adverse pregnancy outcomes. Despite this, an estimated 6-19% of women in Europe smoke during pregnancy. We conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of the clinical practice recommendations of the 2017 Tobacco Cessation Guidelines for High-Risk Groups (TOB-G) for pregnant and postpartum women in an outpatient obstetrics setting. METHODS: The guideline recommendations were tested on a sample of 67 pregnant women recruited from obstetrics outpatient visits. Pregnant women who smoked received three behavioural counselling sessions through a combination of face-toface and telephone consultations by a midwife trained in the TOBG tobacco treatment recommendations. Smoking status was assessed at 1 month and at 6 months follow-up via self-report. RESULTS: Seventy-one per cent of pregnant smokers screened agreed to participate in the counselling intervention. Pregnant women participants (mean age, M=31.73 years, SD±6.09) smoked for an average of 12.2 (SD±6.55) years. Women reported smoking an average of 4.82 (SD±4.14) cigarettes per day with 51% reporting smoking within 30 minutes of waking, an indicator of higher levels of nicotine addiction. Rates of smoking abstinence among pregnant women undergoing the counselling intervention were 43.9% and 45.6% at the 1 month and at 6 months follow-up, respectively. Replacing those participants with missing data as smokers, the quit rates were 26.9% and 38.8% at the 1 month and 6 months follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The counselling intervention delivered to pregnant women who smoke was feasible to implement in a manner that was consistent with the TOB-G guideline recommendations in an outpatient obstetrics setting. Future work should focus on increasing uptake of evidence-based tobacco treatment recommendations in outpatient obstetrics settings.
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".