Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33023537›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Acceptability of a cessation intervention for pregnant smokers: a qualitative study guided by Normalization Process Theory.

Susan E Jones, Sharon Hamilton, Ruth Bell, Vera Araújo-Soares, Martin White

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Susan E JonesSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Borough Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BX, UK. Susan.Jones@tees.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3052-2542
Sharon HamiltonSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Borough Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BX, UK.
Ruth BellInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Vera Araújo-SoaresDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Martin WhiteInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Teesside University · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration MR/K02325X
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking during pregnancy has serious consequences for maternal and child health. An intervention package to embed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance (babyClear©) was delivered across maternity and stop smoking services (SSS) within an English region, to support pregnant women to stop smoking. We aimed to ascertain acceptability among pregnant smokers receiving the intervention.

methodsPregnant smokers who received the intervention and participated in the study were interviewed, first at around 16 weeks of pregnancy (n = 17) and again several weeks later (n = 8) or postpartum (n = 3). Interview schedules were informed by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) and Theoretical Domains Framework; interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, using the Framework method and NPT. Findings are grouped according to the four NPT concepts.

resultsCoherence: Carbon monoxide monitoring appeared to make sense; women were motivated to quit by being monitored. Cognitive participation: When linked to a professional discourse of caring and concern, some women were prompted to engage with the SS message. Women were more guarded in their reaction to initial contact from the SSS; reporting attending appointments successfully, or in some cases, experiencing problems that decreased engagement and made quitting harder. Collective action: Where women continued to smoke or failed to attend SSS appointments, an extra intervention was delivered, the Risk Perception Tool (RPT), which often prompted pregnant women to act. Reflexive monitoring: Most women accepted the need for a hard-hitting approach (RPT) and, while it distressed them at the time, they claimed they were subsequently grateful for it. SSS intervention post-RPT was seen as supportive, partly because it often involved home visits. Aspects of family inclusion in babyClear© were reported as beneficial. In Trusts where women experienced services as less focused on prioritising the stop smoking message, less well integrated or reported maternity staff as less adept at delivering the RPT, women found babyClear© less acceptable overall.

conclusionsThe babyClear© package was acceptable to pregnant smokers interviewed during and shortly after pregnancy and, in some cases, to promote quitting. However, some contexts were more optimal than others, leading to variation in acceptability overall.

Indexed as

AdultClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMotivationPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnant PeoplePrenatal CareQualitative ResearchResearch DesignSmokersSmokingSmoking CessationYoung AdultComplex interventionNormalization Process TheoryOpt outPregnancyProcess evaluationQualitativeSmoking cessationStop smoking services

Identifiers

PMID33023537
PMCPMC7542132
OpenAlexW3091843449

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.