Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36600364›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2022

Usual care in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy: qualitative findings from a mixed-methods process evaluation.

Jennifer McKell, Fiona M Harris, Lesley Sinclair, Linda Bauld, David Michael Tappin, Pat Hoddinott

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

6 authors.

Jennifer McKellInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK j.e.mckell@stir.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2912-0837
Fiona M HarrisSchool of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3258-5624
Lesley SinclairDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2210-8181
Linda BauldUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, and SPECTRUM Research Consortium, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7411-4260
David Michael TappinSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8914-055X
Pat HoddinottNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professional Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4372-9681

Funding

Cancer Research UK 29792Cancer Research UK C48006/A20863/CRUKChief Scientist Office HIPS/16/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFinancial incentives are recommended by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to aid smoking cessation in pregnancy. However, little is known about how implementation contexts might impact on their effectiveness. Variations in smoking cessation support (usual care) for pregnant women who smoke were examined qualitatively as part of a prospective process evaluation of the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT III).

designLongitudinal case studies of five CPIT III trial sites informed by realist evaluation.

settingA stop smoking service (SSS) serving a maternity hospital constituted each case study, located in three UK countries.

participantsData collection included semistructured interviews with trial participants (n=22), maternity (n=12) and SSS staff (n=17); and site observations and perspectives recorded in fieldnotes (n=85).

resultsCessation support (usual care) for pregnant women varied in amount, location, staff capacity, flexibility and content across sites. SSS staff capacity was important to avoid gaps in support. Colocation and good working relationships between maternity and SSS professionals enabled prioritisation and reinforced the importance of smoking cessation. Sites with limited use of carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring reduced opportunities to identify smokers while inconsistency around automatic referral processes prevented the offer of cessation support. SSS professionals colocated within antenatal clinics were available to women they could not otherwise reach. Flexibility around location, timing and tailoring of approaches for support, facilitated initial and sustained engagement and reduced the burden on women.

conclusionsTrial sites faced varied barriers and facilitators to delivering cessation support, reflecting heterogeneity in usual care. If financial incentives are more effective with concurrent smoking cessation support, sites with fewer barriers and more facilitators regarding this support would be expected to have more promising trial outcomes. Future reporting of trial outcomes will assist in understanding incentives' generalisability across a wide range of usual care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15236311.

Indexed as

Smoking CessationFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMotivationPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal CareMaternal medicinePUBLIC HEALTHQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID36600364
PMCPMC9730354

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.