Background Alcohol consumption during pregnancy is associated with major birth defects and developmental disabilities. Questionnaires concerning alcohol consumption during pregnancy underestimate alcohol use while the use of a reliable and objective biomarker for alcohol consumption enables more accurate screening. Phosphatidylethanol can detect low levels of alcohol consumption in the previous two weeks. In this study we aimed to biochemically assess the prevalence of alcohol consumption during early pregnancy using phosphatidylethanol in blood and compare this with self-reported alcohol consumption. Methods To evaluate biochemically assessed prevalence of alcohol consumption during early pregnancy using phosphatidylethanol levels, we conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, single center study in the largest tertiary hospital of the Netherlands. All adult pregnant women who were under the care of the obstetric department of the Erasmus MC and who underwent routine blood testing at a gestational age of less than 15 weeks were eligible. No specified informed consent was needed. Results The study was conducted between September 2016 and October 2017. In total, we received 1,002 residual samples of 992 women. After applying in- and exclusion criteria we analyzed 684 samples. Mean gestational age of all included women was 10.3 weeks (SD 1.9). Of these women, 36 (5.3 %) tested positive for phosphatidylethanol, indicating alcohol consumption in the previous two weeks. Of women with a positive phosphatidylethanol test, 89 % (n = 32) did not express alcohol consumption to their obstetric care provider. Conclusions One in nineteen women consumed alcohol during early pregnancy with a high percentage not reporting this use to their obstetric care provider. Questioning alcohol consumption by an obstetric care provider did not successfully identify (hazardous) alcohol consumption. Routine screening with phosphatidylethanol in maternal blood can be of added value to identify women who consume alcohol during pregnancy.

Introduction On 2 September 2019, Rotterdam’s first inner-city outdoor smoke-free zone encompassing the Erasmus MC, a large university hospital in the Netherlands, the Erasmiaans high school, the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences and the public road in between, was implemented. We aimed to assess spatiotemporal patterning of smoking before and after implementation of this outdoor smoke-free zone. Methods We performed a before-after observational field study. We systematically observed the number of smokers, and their locations and characteristics over 37 days before and after implementation of the smoke-free zone. Results Before implementation of the smoke-free zone, 4,098 people smoked in the area every weekday during working hours. After implementation, the daily number of smokers was 2,241, a 45% reduction (p=0.007). There was an increase of 432 smokers per day near and just outside the borders of the zone. At baseline, 31% of the smokers were categorised as employee, 22% as student and 3% as patient. Following implementation of the smoke-free zone, the largest decreases in smokers were observed among employees (–67%, p-value 0.004) and patients (–70%, p-value 0.049). Before and after implementation, 21 and 20 smokers were visibly addressed and asked to smoke elsewhere. Conclusions Implementation of an inner-city smoke-free zone was associated with a substantial decline in the number of smokers in the zone, and an overall reduction of smoking in the larger area. Further research should focus on optimising implementation of and compliance with outdoor smoke-free zones.

Despite existing interventions, tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy are common. The Smoke and Alcohol Free with EHealth and Rewards (SAFER) pregnancy intervention combines monthly group sessions, access to a web-based platform and incentives upon biochemically validated cessation for a maximum duration of 6 months to promote cessation of smoking and alcohol use before and during pregnancy. To inform development of the SAFER pregnancy intervention, two focus groups with the target population were held beforehand, with results reported here alongside the final SAFER pregnancy study protocol. In a before−after study we aim to include 66 women who are pregnant or have a wish to become pregnant and who smoke and/or consume alcohol (i.e. target population of the SAFER pregnancy intervention). The primary outcome measure is cessation of smoking and/or alcohol use at 34−38 weeks of gestation, or after six group sessions if women did not become pregnant during the study period. Secondary outcomes focus on the barriers and facilitators for implementation of the SAFER pregnancy intervention.

Introduction Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of morbidity and mortality of the mother and child. The inability of the unborn child to protect itself, raises the social and academic responsibility to protect the child from the harmful effects of smoking. Interventions including rewards (incentives) for lifestyle changes are an upcoming trend and can encourage women to quit smoking. However, these incentives can, as we will argue, also have negative consequences, for example the restriction of personal autonomy and encouragement of smoking to become eligible for participation. To prevent these negative consequences, we developed an ethical framework that enables to assess and address unwanted consequences of incentive-based interventions whereby moral permissibility can be evaluated. Aims and Methods The possible adverse consequences of incentives were identified through an extensive literature search. Subsequently, we developed ethical criteria to identify these consequences based on the biomedical ethical principles of Beauchamp and Childress. Results Our framework consists of 12 criteria. These criteria concern (1) effectiveness, (2) support of a healthy lifestyle, (3) motivational for the target population, (4) stimulating unhealthy behavior, (5) negative attitudes, (6) personal autonomy, (7) intrinsic motivation, (8) privacy, (9) fairness, (10) allocation of incentives, (11) cost-effectiveness, and (12) health inequity. Based on these criteria, the moral permissibility of potential interventions can be evaluated. Conclusions Incentives for smoking cessation are a response to the responsibility to protect the unborn child. But these interventions might have possible adverse effects. This ethical framework aims to identify and address ethical pitfalls in order to avoid these adverse effects. Implications Although various interventions to promote smoking cessation during pregnancy exist, many women still smoke during pregnancy. Interventions using incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy are a promising and upcoming trend but can have unwanted consequences. This ethical framework helps to identify and address ethical pitfalls in order to avoid these adverse effects. It can be a practical tool in the development and evaluation of these interventions and in evaluating the moral permissibility of interventions using incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy.

It’s time for practice and policy to reflect compelling evidence of benefit