Bullock 1995.
Methods | 2‐armed randomised controlled trial of telephone support for improving maternal health outcomes, including smoking cessation during pregnancy. Study conducted in a metropolitan city in the south island of New Zealand from March to December 1993. |
|
Participants |
Inclusion criteria: Women with telephone access, who were either single or with an unemployed partner, less than 20 weeks' gestation. Exclusion criteria: None stated. Recruitment: Recruited in the outpatient department of a large maternity hospital, or its associated GP practices, or self‐referral via an introductory letter, phone call, and full discussion of "Healthy Mothers/Healthy Babies". The eligible population was 221 women of whom 49 were never located, 23 were not interested, 10 refused after explanation, and 8 moved away, did not speak English or had a miscarriage. 131 (59%) participated (103 OPD, 22 from GPs, 6 self‐referred) (C = 66, I = 65 randomised). Just over 50% were smokers (C = 35, I = 31). Baseline characteristics: Mean cigarettes per day at baseline = 6. 88% European, 10% Maori. 53% single. Progress + coding: Low SES. |
|
Interventions |
Control: Package of publicly available educational material on healthy behaviours during pregnancy.
Intervention: Package plus weekly telephone call from trained volunteer with the aim of providing minimal support until 12 weeks after birth; aim "to be a friend and a good listener"; to ask about symptoms; signs; alcohol; drugs; smoking and meals in every call; to encourage attendance at AN clinic appointments and to ask about "feeling stressed".
Intervention provided by 19 female volunteers, trained for the project with a "case load" of 2 to 6 women each. Main intervention strategy: Maternal health intervention with smoking component: Social support (single intervention) compared to a less intensive intervention. Intensity: Frequency (C = 2, I = 6); Duration (C = 1, I = 4). Intervention provided by project staff: efficacy study. |
|
Outcomes | Self‐reported abstinence at 34/40 (late pregnancy*). Mean cigarettes per day*. Anxiety (Speilbergers State anxiety score) and depression (Levine Pilowsky Depression inventory) at baseline and 34/40; stress; social support; self‐esteem. There were other intervention components which might have influenced these outcomes. |
|
Notes | No process evaluation is reported. No sample size justification. 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 assignment to control or intervention in balanced blocks of 50. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information provided. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Data being reported were analysed on 122/131 of randomised women (control = 63/66, intervention = 59/65). 1 woman requested to be removed from the study, but there were 8 women who for various reasons had incomplete data. p477 4.5% control 9.2% intervention. Only a proportion were smokers (I = 31, C = 35), and the attrition among these is not reported so we were unable to re‐include them in the analysis for this review. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | None apparent. |
Other bias | Low risk | No other bias detected. |
Biochemical validation of smoking abstinence (detection bias) | High risk | No biochemical validation of reported smoking behaviour. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Caregiver blinded to allocation. Women not blinded to intervention. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported. |
Incomplete implementation | Unclear risk | No process evaluation. |
Equal baseline characteristics in study arms | Unclear risk | Baseline psychosocial variables (stress; social support; self‐esteem; depression; anxiety) reported in Table 2. Demographic variables not reported. |
Contamination of control group | Unclear risk | Care providers blinded to allocation and not involved in intervention delivery. |