MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922041717 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003377

Experiences and cessation needs of Indigenous women who smoke during pregnancy: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

2018· review· en· W2922041717 on OpenAlex
Sandra P. Small, Caroline Porr, Michelle Swab, Cynthia Murray

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLSmoking cessationIndigenousPregnancyMedicineContext (archaeology)PsycINFOQualitative researchFamily medicineMEDLINEGerontologyPsychological interventionNursingSocial scienceGeographyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize the best available evidence to address two questions: i) what is the experience of smoking during pregnancy for Indigenous women? and ii) what are the smoking cessation needs of Indigenous women who smoke during pregnancy? INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy not only affects pregnant women's general health but also causes such serious problems as pre-term delivery, low birth weight, and sudden infant death. Rates of smoking during pregnancy are particularly high among Indigenous women. Learning about Indigenous women's experiences of smoking during pregnancy and associated smoking cessation needs is important to providing informed health care to them. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The participants of interest were Indigenous women who smoked during a current or past pregnancy. The phenomena of interest were the experiences of smoking during pregnancy for Indigenous women and the smoking cessation needs of Indigenous women during pregnancy. The context was any community worldwide where pregnant Indigenous women live. Studies considered for this review were those in which qualitative data were gathered and analysed on the phenomena of interest, including mixed methods research. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted for published studies in academic databases (i.e. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Sociological Abstracts, SocINDEX, and Web of Science), unpublished studies in sources of gray literature (i.e. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, OAIster, LILACS, MedNar, Google, Google Scholar, OpenGrey and relevant websites), and any additional studies in reference lists. Language and date limiters were not applied. The searches included all studies globally and were carried out on October 31, 2016. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality by two reviewers independently, using the criteria of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Descriptive details of each study accepted for this review were extracted in accordance with the elements of the JBI Data Extraction Form for Qualitative Research. The research findings that were relevant to the phenomena of interest and had participant voice were extracted from each included study and synthesized using the JBI meta-aggregative approach. The synthesized findings were assigned confidence scores in accordance with the JBI ConQual approach. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in this review following careful consideration of the methodological quality of each study. The studies yielded a total of 116 research findings, which were grouped into 19 categories and then aggregated to form five synthesized findings. Confidence in the findings was determined to be low to very low (see ConQual Summary of Findings). CONCLUSION: There is a small body of research evidence on Indigenous women's experiences of smoking during pregnancy and their smoking cessation needs. Confidence in the synthesized findings is constrained due to methodological limitations in many of the primary studies included in this review, along with mixed credibility of the research findings from across primary studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it