Van T Tong1, Patricia M Dietz1, Italia V Rolle2, Sara M Kennedy3, William Thomas4, Lucinda J England2. 1. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. Research Triangle Institute, International, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 4. Division of Epidemiology, Analysis, and Library Services, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of clinical interventions to reduce secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure among non-smoking pregnant women. DATA SOURCES: We searched 16 databases for publications from 1990 to January 2013, with no language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Papers were included if they met the following criteria: (1) the study population included non-smoking pregnant women exposed to SHS, (2) the clinical interventions were intended to reduce SHS exposure at home, (3) the study included a control group and (4) outcomes included either reduced SHS exposure of non-smoking pregnant women at home or quit rates among smoking partners during the pregnancy of the woman. DATA EXTRACTION: Two coders independently reviewed each abstract or full text to identify eligible papers. Two abstractors independently coded papers based on US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for study quality (good, fair, poor), and studies without biochemically-verified outcome measures were considered poor quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 4670 papers, we identified five studies that met our inclusion criteria: four focused on reducing SHS exposure among non-smoking pregnant women, and one focused on providing cessation support for smoking partners of pregnant women. All were randomised controlled trials, and all reported positive findings. Three studies were judged poor quality because outcome measures were not biochemically-verified, and two were considered fair quality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical interventions delivered in prenatal care settings appear to reduce SHS exposure, but study weaknesses limit our ability to draw firm conclusions. More rigorous studies, using biochemical validation, are needed to identify strategies for reducing SHS exposure in pregnant women. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of clinical interventions to reduce secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure among non-smoking pregnant women. DATA SOURCES: We searched 16 databases for publications from 1990 to January 2013, with no language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Papers were included if they met the following criteria: (1) the study population included non-smoking pregnant women exposed to SHS, (2) the clinical interventions were intended to reduce SHS exposure at home, (3) the study included a control group and (4) outcomes included either reduced SHS exposure of non-smoking pregnant women at home or quit rates among smoking partners during the pregnancy of the woman. DATA EXTRACTION: Two coders independently reviewed each abstract or full text to identify eligible papers. Two abstractors independently coded papers based on US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for study quality (good, fair, poor), and studies without biochemically-verified outcome measures were considered poor quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 4670 papers, we identified five studies that met our inclusion criteria: four focused on reducing SHS exposure among non-smoking pregnant women, and one focused on providing cessation support for smoking partners of pregnant women. All were randomised controlled trials, and all reported positive findings. Three studies were judged poor quality because outcome measures were not biochemically-verified, and two were considered fair quality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical interventions delivered in prenatal care settings appear to reduce SHS exposure, but study weaknesses limit our ability to draw firm conclusions. More rigorous studies, using biochemical validation, are needed to identify strategies for reducing SHS exposure in pregnant women. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Susan Baxter; Lindsay Blank; Emma S Everson-Hock; Julia Burrows; Josie Messina; Louise Guillaume; Elizabeth Goyder Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2011-01-26
Authors: Martin Kharrazi; Gerald N DeLorenze; Farla L Kaufman; Brenda Eskenazi; John T Bernert; Steve Graham; Michelle Pearl; James Pirkle Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Ana Florescu; Roberta Ferrence; Thomas R Einarson; Peter Selby; Michael Kramer; Susan Woodruff; Lindsey Grossman; Allison Rankin; Evelyn Jacqz-Aigrain; Gideon Koren Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Van T Tong; Paola Morello; Alicia Alemán; Carolyn Johnson; Patricia M Dietz; Sherry L Farr; Agustina Mazzoni; Mabel Berrueta; Mercedes Colomar; Alvaro Ciganda; Ana Becú; Maria G Bittar Gonzalez; Laura Llambi; Luz Gibbons; Ruben A Smith; Pierre Buekens; José M Belizán; Fernando Althabe Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2015-06
Authors: Julia Schechter; Elizabeth K Do; Junfeng Jim Zhang; Cathrine Hoyo; Susan K Murphy; Scott H Kollins; Bernard Fuemmeler Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Timor Faber; Jasper V Been; Irwin K Reiss; Johan P Mackenbach; Aziz Sheikh Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 2.871
Authors: Alicia Alemán; Paola Morello; Mercedes Colomar; Laura Llambi; Mabel Berrueta; Luz Gibbons; Pierre Buekens; Fernando Althabe Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 3.390