Pregnant and postnatal women’s experiences of interacting with health care providers about their tobacco smoking: a qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was twofold: i) to comprehensively identify the best available evidence about the experiences of women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy or postnatally (or both) concerning health care providers' interactions with them about their smoking, when such interactions occurred during contact for prenatal or postnatal health care in any health care setting; and ii) to synthesize the research findings for recommendations to strengthen health care providers' interventions regarding smoking during pregnancy and smoking during the postnatal period. INTRODUCTION: Maternal tobacco smoking during pregnancy and maternal tobacco smoking postnatally pose serious health risks for the woman, fetus, and offspring, whereas maternal smoking cessation has beneficial health effects. Given the importance of health care providers' interactions with pregnant and postnatal women for smoking cessation care, it is essential to understand women's experiences of such interactions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies considered for this review had qualitative research findings about the experiences of women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy or postnatally (or both) in relation to health care providers' interactions with them about their smoking. METHODS: The review was conducted using the JBI approach to qualitative systematic reviews. Published studies were sought through 6 academic databases (eg, CINAHL, MEDLINE). Unpublished studies were searched in 6 gray literature sources (eg, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar). Reference lists of retrieved records were also searched. The searches occurred in October and November 2020; no country, language, or date limits were applied. Study selection involved title and abstract screening, full-text examination, and critical appraisal of all studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Study characteristics and research findings were extracted from the included studies. Study selection and extraction of findings were conducted by 2 reviewers independently; differences between reviewers were resolved through consensus. The research findings were categorized, and the categories were aggregated into a set of synthesized findings. The synthesized findings were assigned confidence scores. The categories and finalized synthesized findings were agreed upon by all reviewers. RESULTS: The 57 included studies varied in qualitative research designs and in methodological quality (from mostly low to high). There were approximately 1092 eligible participants, and 250 credible and unequivocal research findings. The research findings yielded 14 categories and 6 synthesized findings with low to very low confidence scores. Some women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy and some women who smoked tobacco postnatally lacked supportive interactions by health care providers regarding their smoking; other women experienced supportive interactions by health care providers. Women were adversely impacted when health care providers' interactions lacked supportiveness, and were beneficially impacted when interactions were supportive. Women varied in openness to health care providers' interactions regarding their smoking, from not being receptive to being accepting, and some women wanted meaningful health care provider interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Although confidence in the synthesized findings is low to very low, the evidence indicates that supportive health care provider interactions may facilitate positive smoking behavior change in pregnancy and postnatally. It is recommended that health care providers implement accepted clinical practice guidelines with women who smoke prenatally or postnatally, using an approach that is person-centered, emotionally supportive, engaging (eg, understanding), and non-authoritarian. 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".