Experiences and cessation needs of Indigenous women who smoke during pregnancy: a systematic review of qualitative evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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in academic databases (i.e. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Sociological Abstracts, SocINDEX, and Web of Science), unpublished studies in sources of gray literature (i.e. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, OAIster, LILACS, MedNar, Google, Google Scholar, OpenGrey and relevant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.
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 | 0.026 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".