MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105659268 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00135

Pregnant and postnatal women's experiences of interacting with health care providers about their tobacco smoking: a qualitative systematic review protocol

2020· article· en· W3105659268 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra P. Small, Michelle Swab, Joy Maddigan

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicinePsycINFOCritical appraisalHealth careQualitative researchContext (archaeology)Family medicinePregnancyPublic healthSmoking cessationMEDLINENursingAlternative medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 Gray literature will be searched for unpublished studies.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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0170.013
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.005

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207