ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Management of tobacco smoking among pregnant women: A qualitative study with French midwives to inform local practice recommendations.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmoking during pregnancy remains a major public health issue and a leading preventable cause of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. In France, midwives play a central role in antenatal care and are key actors in smoking cessation support. However, little is known about how smoking cessation is managed in routine maternity care and how organizational and professional factors shape these practices.
objectivesTo explore midwives' experiences in managing tobacco use during pregnancy, identify perceived barriers and facilitators in routine practice, and generate context-specific, practice-oriented recommendations to improve smoking cessation support within a maternity care setting.
designA qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews.
methodsNine midwives working in a single French maternity unit participated in semi-structured interviews conducted between March and May 2023. Data were analyzed using a Framework analysis combining deductive coding informed by the capability, opportunity, and motivation-behavior (COM-B) model and the theoretical domains framework, with inductive refinement to capture emerging themes. Data saturation was assessed retrospectively. Reporting followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines.
resultsMidwives described heterogeneous practices in smoking cessation support and reported multiple barriers to optimal care. Three main challenges emerged: limited prioritization of smoking during consultations, insufficient knowledge and confidence in smoking cessation management, and organizational constraints, including lack of time, absence of structured care pathways, and limited coordination with addiction services. Engagement in smoking cessation discussions was often conditional on perceived patient motivation. These findings informed the development of practice-oriented recommendations targeting training needs, organizational improvements, and supportive tools within the maternity unit.
conclusionThis study highlights how individual capabilities, organizational opportunities, and motivational factors interact to shape smoking cessation support in routine maternity care. By adopting an implementation-focused perspective, it identifies modifiable levers to strengthen midwives' capacity to address smoking during pregnancy. The recommendations proposed are exploratory and context-specific, intended to support local quality improvement initiatives rather than national guideline development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.