A Pilot Study of Home‐Based Smoking Cessation Programs for Rural, Appalachian, Pregnant Smokers

Harris, Millie; Reynolds, Brady

doi:10.1111/1552-6909.12547

Cited by 28 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three studies used videotapes (Cinciripini et al, 2000;Price et al, 1991;Secker-Walker et al, 1997), and one study used telephone Interactive Voice Response Technology (IVR) (Ershoff et al, 1999). Two trials used websites, including a contingency management programme (Harris & Reynolds, 2015), and an interactive and personalised website, 'MumsQuit' (Herbec, Brown, Tombor, Michie, & West, 2014). The remaining two trials were computer programmes.…”

Section: Digital Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three trials used digitalised interventions as the comparator group: text-message comparison groups (Abroms et al, 2017;Pollak et al, 2013) and a static website providing brief smoking cessation advice (Herbec et al, 2014). One intervention used a nurse-led telephone counselling system (Harris & Reynolds, 2015).…”

Section: Comparator Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, almost 80% of participants in the interactive voice response group made no calls to the service (Ershoff et al, 1999). Other reasons suggesting incomplete implementation included high drop-out rates before the intervention was complete (Price et al, 1991), and inadequate breath samples at follow-up in the control group (Harris & Reynolds, 2015). Further sources of bias included lack of randomisation of medical practices recruited late in the study (Lawrence et al, 2003), and only reporting self-reported abstinence, which may have led to an inflation in observed quit rates (Herbec et al, 2014).…”

Section: Risk Of Bias In Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sample-weighted OR indicated that digital interventions significantly increased the odds of quitting smoking during pregnancy compared to control groups (OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-2.00, p = .03) (see Figure 3). The effect estimate favoured the control group in three trials (Cinciripini et al, 2000;Ershoff et al, 1999;Harris & Reynolds, 2015). Examination of the funnel plot revealed some asymmetry across studies suggesting possible publication bias and missing unpublished trials with negative effects, although analysis of funnel plots is difficult and subjective (see Figure 4).…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Are digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Griffiths

Parsons

Naughton

et al. 2018

Health Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smoking in pregnancy remains a global public health issue due to foetal health risks and potential maternal complications. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to explore: (1) whether digital interventions for pregnancy smoking cessation are effective, (2) the impact of intervention platform on smoking cessation, (3) the associations between specific Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) delivered within interventions and smoking cessation and (4) the association between the total number of BCTs delivered and smoking cessation. Systematic searches of 9 databases resulted in the inclusion of 12 published articles (n = 2970). The primary meta-analysis produced a sample-weighted odds ratio (OR) of 1.44 (95% CI 1.04-2.00, p = .03) in favour of digital interventions compared with comparison groups. Computer-based (OR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.28-7.33) and text-message interventions (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.07-2.38) were the most effective digital platform. Moderator analyses revealed seven BCTs associated with smoking cessation: information about antecedents; action planning; problem solving; goal setting (behaviour); review behaviour goals; social support (unspecified); and pros and cons. A meta-regression suggested that interventions using larger numbers of BCTs produced the greatest effects. This paper highlights the potential for digital interventions to improve rates of smoking cessation in pregnancy.

show abstract

Section: Digital Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparator Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias In Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Griffiths

Parsons

Naughton

et al. 2018

Health Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 The web-based version of this program is ideal in the rural population because it lessens the travel burden and provides frequent verification and reinforcement, two essential components for smoking abstinence that promote rapid change in behavior. 6 The primary aim of the study was to determine the benefit of CM on maternal smoking abstinence compared to pregnant smokers not enrolled in this program. Based on what we know about pregnant smokers, we hypothesize that the group receiving CM will achieve higher abstinence rates at delivery than pregnant smokers not enrolled in CM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%