Pregnant and postnatal women's experiences of interacting with health care providers about their tobacco smoking: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to comprehensively identify and synthesize the best available evidence about the experiences of women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy or postnatally (or both) concerning their health care providers' interactions with them about their smoking. INTRODUCTION: Smoking tobacco during pregnancy and postnatally continue to be important global public health challenges. Maternal smoking poses risks to the woman's general health and causes pregnancy complications and serious adverse health effects for the fetus and child. Hence, it is essential that health care providers support pregnant and postnatal women to achieve smoking cessation and not relapse. Learning about these women's experiences of health care provider interactions may inform recommendations for health care provider best practice in interpersonal approach. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The participants of interest are women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy, the postnatal period, or both, with the phenomenon of interest being their experiences of health care provider interactions with them about their smoking. The context is any setting globally. Studies for consideration will have qualitative data, including any mixed methods studies. METHODS: This qualitative systematic review will be conducted according to JBI methodology. Databases to be searched for published studies include CINAHL, PubMed, APA PsycINFO, Embase, Sociological Abstracts, and SocINDEX. Gray literature will be searched for unpublished studies. The authors will conduct an initial screening and then a full-text review of studies for congruence with the inclusion criteria. A critical appraisal will be performed on eligible studies and data will be extracted from included studies. Meta-aggregation will be used to yield synthesized findings, which will be assigned confidence scores. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020178866.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".