Methods | Randomised controlled trial of self-help materials and health education to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy Study conducted in a teaching hospital (academic) clinic in North Carolina, USA from August 1991 to January 1993 |
|
Participants |
Inclusion criteria: Pregnant women who smoke. Exclusion criteria: > 36 weeks’ gestation, psychiatric diagnosis. Recruitment: 842/846 (99%) women attending the clinic completed survey and 793/846 provided a CO breath sample.; 2 were excluded as > 36 weeks’ gestation; 1 for psychiatric diagnosis; leaving 266 (32%) eligible smokers (smoked at least once in the prior week). 12 refused, 4 were missed, 2 were not pregnant and 1 was a private patient. 247 women randomised Baseline characteristics: Mean cigs/day (C = 14.4, I = 13.5), Want to quit (C = 81%, I = 84%). Smokers in household (C = 75%, I = 78%) White (C = 74%, I = 78%), Single (C = 44%, I = 47%), < 12yrs education (C = 43%, I = 48%) Progress+ coding: Low SES. |
|
Interventions | All 1-4 year residents given didactic and role play training for smoking cessation counselling, including self-assessment of current techniques and skills, which they were asked to continue with for the control group. Control: Standard care; residents reminded not to alter amount or time of this; help was provided if woman sought it and prenatal classes included discussion of substance abuse, including cigarettes. Intervention: (i) residents provided counselling at each visit, and a brief script aimed at setting a quit date or negotiated an alternative assignment such as a smoking diary at every contact; (ii) given Windsor’s self-directed 7-day smoking cessation guide; (iii) quit date patients given written prescription to quit, letter of support from doctor, contacted by volunteer smoking cessation counsellor to review the quit plan and encourage follow-through charts flagged, prompts with flow sheet, most recent CO and self-report included for care provider; (iv) successful quitters sent an encouraging postcard each week Main intervention strategy: Counselling (multiple intervention) compared to usual care Intensity: Frequency (C = 0, I = 6), Duration (C = 0, I = 2). Usual care intensity: F = 1, D = 1 Intervention provided by existing staff: Effectiveness study |
|
Outcomes | Biochemically validated abstinence at last prenatal visit (late pregnancy*). > 50% reduction in self-reported smoking*; Mean cigarettes per day* Cost-effectiveness data reported. |
|
Notes | SDs for mean cigarettes per day were not reported, therefore we calculated a mean SD from 14 studies with available mean cigarette SDs (6.5) to include in this review, as recommended by the cochrane handbook | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors’ judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer-generated random numbers. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | State that neither the enrolling nurse nor the patient were aware of allocation, but experimental group notes were flagged |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes |
High risk | Attrition 40/247 (16%) (4 miscarriages first trimester, 3 miscarriages second trimester, 3 terminations, 15 moved to alternative care, and 12 lost to follow-up) 207 included in analysis (C = 100, I = 107). Those lost to follow-up not able to be re-included in analysis in this review as numbers not reported by study arm |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Not apparent. |
Other bias | Low risk | No other bias detected. |
Biochemical validation of smoking abstinence (detection bias) | Low risk | Exhaled CO measured at each visit for the experimental group and at 3 visits for the comparison group. < 5 ppm counted as non-smokers |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes |
High risk | Case notes flagged. States patient not aware of randomisation status |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes |
Unclear risk | Not reported. |
Incomplete implementation | Unclear risk | No process evaluation reported. |
Equal baseline characteristics in study arms | Low risk | No significant differences noted. |
Contamination of control group | High risk | Concerns about residents having to treat similar/consecutive patients differently, and self-help manuals accidentally given to some controls. Discussion section reports evidence of contamination with self-help materials being given to controls |