Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25336275›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2015

A comparison of UK primary care data with other national data sources for monitoring the prevalence of smoking during pregnancy.

Nafeesa N Dhalwani, Laila J Tata, Tim Coleman, Linda Fiaschi, Lisa Szatkowski

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Stillbirth Among Women Prescribed Nicotine Replacement Therapy in Pregnancy: Analysis of a Large UK Pregnancy Cohort.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nafeesa N DhalwaniDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Laila J TataDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.
Tim ColemanDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Linda FiaschiDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.
Lisa SzatkowskiDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKDepartment of Health RP-PG-0109-10020Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to assess the potential usefulness of primary care data in the UK for estimating smoking prevalence in pregnancy by comparing the primary care data estimates with those obtained from other data sources.

methodsIn The Health Improvement Network (THIN) primary care database, we identified pregnant smokers using smoking information recorded during pregnancy. Where this information was missing, we used smoking information recorded prior to pregnancy. We compared annual smoking prevalence from 2000 to 2012 in THIN with measures from the Infant Feeding Survey (IFS), Smoking At Time of Delivery (SATOD), Child Health Systems Programme (CHSP) and Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR).

resultsSmoking estimates from THIN data converged with estimates from other sources after 2004, though still do not agree completely. For example, in 2012 smoking prevalence at booking was 11.6% in THIN using data recorded only during pregnancy, compared with 19.6% in SMR data. However, the use of smoking data recorded up to 27 months before conception increased the THIN prevalence to 20.3%, improving the comparability.

conclusionsUnder-recording of smoking status during pregnancy results in unreliable prevalence estimates from primary care data and needs improvement. However, in the absence of gestational smoking data, the inclusion of pre-conception smoking records may increase the utility of primary care data. One strategy to improve gestational smoking status recording in primary care could be the inclusion of pregnancy in the Quality and Outcome's Framework as a condition for which smoking status and smoking cessation advice must be recorded electronically in patient records.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPopulation SurveillancePregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPrevalencePrimary Health CareSmokingUnited KingdomYoung Adultpregnancy and childbirth disordersprimary caresmoking

Identifiers

PMID25336275
PMCPMC4552009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.