A group randomised trial of two methods for disseminating a smoking cessation programme to public antenatal clinics: effects on patient outcomes

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used strategy to improve professional practice. This is supported by prior Cochrane reviews and behavioural theories describing how healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given data showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Yet there remains uncertainty regarding the effects of A&F on improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of A&F that lead to a greater impact.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of A&F on the practice of healthcare professionals and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of A&F.

SEARCH METHODS

With the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group information scientist, we updated our search strategy to include studies published from 2010 to June 2020. Search updates were performed on 28 February 2019 and 11 June 2020. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov (all dates to June 2020), WHO ICTRP (all dates to February Week 3 2019, no information available in 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic). An updated search and duplicate screen was completed on February 14, 2022; studies that met inclusion criteria are included in the 'Studies awaiting classification' section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, including cluster-trials and cross-over and factorial designs, featuring A&F (defined as measurement of clinical performance over a specified period of time (audit) and provision of the resulting data to clinicians or clinical teams (feedback)) in any trial arm that reported objectively measured health professional practice outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this updated review, we re-extracted data for each study arm, including theory-informed variables regarding how the A&F was conducted and behaviour change techniques for each intervention, as well as study-level characteristics including risk of bias. For each study, we extracted outcome data for every healthcare professional practice targeted by A&F. All data were extracted by a minimum of two independent review authors. For studies with dichotomous outcomes that included arms with and without A&F, we calculated risk differences (RDs) (absolute difference between arms in proportion of desired practice completed) and also odds ratios (ORs). We synthesised the median RDs and interquartile ranges (IQRs) across all trials. We then conducted meta-analyses, accounting for multiple outcomes from a given study and weighted by effective sample size, using reported (or imputed, when necessary) intra-cluster correlation coefficients. Next, we explored the role of baseline performance, co-interventions, targeted behaviour, and study design factors on the estimated effects of A&F. Finally, we conducted exploratory meta-regressions to test preselected variables that might be associated with A&F effect size: characteristics of the audit (number of indicators, aggregation of data); delivery of the feedback (multi-modal format, local champion, nature of comparator, repeated delivery); and components supporting action (facilitation, provision of specific plans for improvement, co-development of action plans).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 292 studies with 678 arms; 133 (46%) had a low risk of bias, 41 (14%) unclear, and 113 (39%) had a high risk of bias. There were 26 (9%) studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries. In most studies (237, 81%), the recipients of A&F were physicians. Professional practices most commonly targeted in the studies were prescribing (138 studies, 47%) and test-ordering (103 studies, 35%). Most studies featured multifaceted interventions: the most common co-interventions were clinician education (377 study arms, 56%) and reminders (100 study arms, 15%). Forty-eight unique behaviour change techniques were identified within the study arms (mean 5.2, standard deviation 2.8, range 1 to 29). Synthesis of 558 dichotomous outcomes measuring professional practices from 177 studies testing A&F versus control revealed a median absolute improvement in desired practice of 2.7%, with an IQR of 0.0 to 8.6. Meta-analyses of these studies, accounting for multiple outcomes from the same study and weighting by effective sample size accounting for clustering, found a mean absolute increase in desired practice of 6.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1 to 8.2; moderate-certainty evidence) and an OR of 1.47 (95% CI 1.31 to 1.64; moderate-certainty evidence). Effects were similar for pre-planned subgroup analyses focused on prescribing and test-ordering outcomes. Lower baseline performance and increased number of co-interventions were both associated with larger intervention effects. Meta-regressions comparing the presence versus absence of specific A&F components to explore heterogeneity, accounting for baseline performance and number of co-interventions, suggested that A&F effects were greater with individual-recipient-level data rather than team-level data, comparing performance to top-peers or a benchmark, involving a local champion with whom the recipient had a relationship, using interactive modalities rather than just didactic or just written format, and with facilitation to support engagement, and action plans to improve performance. The meta-regressions did not find significant effects with the number of indicators in the audit, comparison to average performance of all peers, or co-development of action plans. Contrary to expectations, repeated delivery was associated with lower effect size. Direct comparisons from head-to-head trials support the use of peer-comparisons versus no comparison at all and the use of design elements in feedback that facilitate the identification and action of high-priority clinical items.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A&F can be effective in improving professional practice, but effects vary in size. A&F is most often delivered along with co-interventions which can contribute additive effects. A&F may be most effective when designed to help recipients prioritise and take action on high-priority clinical issues and with the following characteristics: 1. targets important performance metrics where health professionals have substantial room for improvement (audit); 2. measures the individual recipient's practice, rather than their team or organisation (audit); 3. involves a local champion with an existing relationship with the recipient (feedback); 4. includes multiple, interactive modalities such as verbal and written (feedback); 5. compares performance to top peers or a benchmark (feedback); 6. facilitates engagement with the feedback (action); 7. features an actionable plan with specific advice for improvement (action). These conclusions require further confirmatory research; future research should focus on discerning ways to optimise the effectiveness of A&F interventions.

Barriers and enablers to addressing smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption, physical activity and gestational weight gain (SNAP-W) as part of antenatal care: A mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

International clinical guidelines recommend that smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption, physical activity and gestational weight gain (SNAP-W) be addressed as part of routine antenatal care throughout pregnancy. However, guideline recommendations are poorly implemented, and few antenatal care recipients routinely receive the recommended care. There is a need to establish the determinants (barriers and enablers) to care delivery to inform strategies to improve implementation. This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence of the barriers and enablers to the routine delivery of antenatal care targeting SNAP-W health risks.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Seven databases were searched for relevant studies published between January 2001 and November 2023. Study findings were coded and analysed according to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included in the review, 27 qualitative studies and 22 quantitative studies. The studies were conducted in 14 countries. Data were collected from 7146 antenatal care providers (midwives, Aboriginal health workers, obstetricians, medical officers, general practitioners) and 352 barriers and enablers were identified. Across all SNAP-W health risk and antenatal care provider groups, the predominant TDF domain was 'environmental context and resources', identified in 96% of studies. Barriers within this domain included insufficient time, limited access to and quality of resources, and limited organisational supports. 'Beliefs about consequences' was the second most common TDF domain, reported in 67% of studies, particularly studies of care related to alcohol use, nutrition/ physical activity/ gestational weight gain and those involving midwives, multidisciplinary practitioners and general practitioners. 'Optimism' was the second most common TDF domain for studies of smoking-related care and involving obstetricians, gynaecologists, and other mixed medical professions.

CONCLUSIONS

It is critical that determinants related to environmental context and resources including time, resources and organisational supports are considered in the development of strategies to support the implementation of recommended antenatal care related to SNAP-W risks. Strategies addressing clinician beliefs about consequences and optimism may also be needed to support the implementation of care related to specific health behaviours and by specific antenatal care provider groups.

REGISTRATION

The review protocol was prospectively registered with Prospero: CRD42022353084; 22 October 2022.

Identifying behaviour change techniques in 287 randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback interventions targeting practice change among healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A&F) is among the most widely used implementation strategies, providing healthcare professionals with summaries of their practice performance to prompt behaviour change and optimize care. Wide variability in effectiveness of A&F has spurred efforts to explore why some A&F interventions are more effective than others. Unpacking the variability of the content of A&F interventions in terms of their component behaviours change techniques (BCTs) may help advance our understanding of how A&F works best. This study aimed to systematically specify BCTs in A&F interventions targeting healthcare professional practice change.

METHODS

We conducted a directed content analysis of intervention descriptions in 287 randomized trials included in an ongoing Cochrane systematic review update of A&F interventions (searched up to June 2020). Three trained researchers identified and categorized BCTs in all trial arms (treatment & control/comparator) using the 93-item BCT Taxonomy version 1. The original BCT definitions and examples in the taxonomy were adapted to include A&F-specific decision rules and examples. Two additional BCTs ('Education (unspecified)' and 'Feedback (unspecified)') were added, such that 95 BCTs were considered for coding.

RESULTS

In total, 47/95 BCTs (49%) were identified across 360 treatment arms at least once (median = 5.0, IQR = 2.3, range = 129 per arm). The most common BCTs were 'Feedback on behaviour' (present 89% of the time; e.g. feedback on drug prescribing), 'Instruction on how to perform the behaviour' (71%; e.g. issuing a clinical guideline), 'Social comparison' (52%; e.g. feedback on performance of peers), 'Credible source' (41%; e.g. endorsements from respected professional body), and 'Education (unspecified)' (31%; e.g. giving a lecture to staff). A total of 130/287 (45%) control/comparator arms contained at least one BCT (median = 2.0, IQR = 3.0, range = 0-15 per arm), of which the most common were identical to those identified in treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

A&F interventions to improve healthcare professional practice include a moderate range of BCTs, focusing predominantly on providing behavioural feedback, sharing guidelines, peer comparison data, education, and leveraging credible sources. We encourage the use of our A&F-specific list of BCTs to improve knowledge of what is being delivered in A&F interventions. Our study provides a basis for exploring which BCTs are associated with intervention effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

N/A.

The effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving preconception and antenatal preventive care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical guideline recommendations for addressing modifiable risk factors are not routinely implemented into preconception and antenatal care. This review assessed the effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving health professional provision of preconception and antenatal care addressing tobacco smoking, weight management and alcohol consumption.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised studies with a parallel comparison group was conducted. Eligible studies used implementation strategy/ies targeted at health professionals to improve at least one element of preconception and/or antenatal care (smoking: ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange; weight/alcohol: assess, advise, refer) compared to usual practice/control or alternative strategies. Eligible studies were identified via CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL and other sources. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate, with other findings summarised using the direction of effect. The certainty of the pooled evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review. Thirteen were in the antenatal period and 12 tested multiple implementation strategies (median: three). Meta-analyses of RCTs found that implementation strategies compared to usual practice/control probably increase asking (OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.13, 5.59; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and advising (OR: 4.32; 95% CI: 3.06, 6.11; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) about smoking and assessing weight gain (OR: 57.56; 95% CI: 41.78, 79.29; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase assessing (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 0.24, 27.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), assisting (OR: 6.34; 95% CI: 1.51, 26.63; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and arranging support (OR: 3.55; 95% CI: 0.50, 25.34; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) for smoking. The true effect of implementation strategies in increasing advice about weight gain (OR: 3.37; 95% CI: 2.34, 4.84; 2 non-randomised studies; very low-certainty evidence) and alcohol consumption (OR: 10.36; 95% CI: 2.37, 41.20; 2 non-randomised studies; very low-certainty evidence) is uncertain due to the quality of evidence to date.

CONCLUSIONS

Review findings provide some evidence to support the effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving health professional delivery of antenatal care addressing smoking and weight management. Rigorous research is needed to build certainty in the evidence for improving alcohol and weight gain advice, and in preconception care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42019131691.

Improving health providers smoking cessation care in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Health providers are lacking in their provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy. The aim of this study was to systematically review all available global studies on the effectiveness of interventions in improving health providers' provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy.

METHODS

Five databases were searched, Inclusion criteria included all intervention study types. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts independently. Interventions were characterized according to the Effective Practice Of Care taxonomy. Random-effects meta-analyses examined intervention effects on smoking cessation care components based on the 5As. Estimates were number of participants reporting each outcome, or mean score, transformed into Cohen's d. Crude meta-regressions, and meta-analysis subgrouping, were performed to examine whether intervention effects for 'Ask', 'Advise' and 'Assist' differed by intervention components.

RESULTS

Of 3165 manuscripts, 16 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed significant small to large intervention effects on the different care components (Cohen's d ranging from 0.47 for 'Ask' (95%CI 0.13-0.81) to 1.12 (95%CI 0.45-1.79) for 'Setting a quit date'). Crude meta-regression suggested that for 'Ask', having a theoretical basis may improve effectiveness (Cohen's d difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.12-1.1). Subgrouping the meta-analysis suggested that audit and feedback possibly increases intervention effectiveness for 'Advise' and 'Assist'.

CONCLUSION

Interventions designed to improve provision of smoking cessation care during pregnancy show a small increase in care components. Studies vary substantially in design, intervention components, and outcome measurement, impacting ability to synthesize available data. Audit and feedback and enhancing intervention design by using behaviour change theories may improve effectiveness.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016030143.

Treatment of Tobacco Dependence, a Critical Gap in Czech Clinical Practice Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Tobacco related comorbidities and treatment of dependence are relevant to clinicians of all disciplines. Clinicians should provide a brief intervention about tobacco use with smokers at each clinical contact (success rate of 5-10 %). Intensive treatment (success rate >30%) should be available to those who need it. Brief intervention is not yet standard clinical practice. Our aim was to assess clinical practice guidelines (CPG) of selected medical professional societies to determine whether or not tobacco dependence treatment recommendations were included.

METHODS

Between October and December 2013, we conducted a keyword search of CPG for 20 medical professional societies in the Czech Republic. We searched for the keywords "smoking", "tobacco" and "nicotine addiction" in 91 CPG documents, which were freely available on the websites of selected professional societies. We focused specifically on CPG relating to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases as well as cancer. We excluded any CPG focused on acute conditions, diagnostics only, laboratory methods, or administration.

RESULTS

There was no mention of smoking in 27.7% (26/94) of CPG documents. Only 16% (15/94) of CPG documents listed smoking as a risk factor. 42.5% (40/94) mentioned smoking related phrases (e.g. "smoking ban"). Only 13.8% (13/94) of CPG included a section on tobacco dependence, referenced tobacco dependence treatment guidelines or mentioned specialized treatment centres where smokers can be referred.

CONCLUSION

Nearly one third of CPG related to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases as well as cancer made no mention of smoking. Despite the clinical significance of smoking, the majority of CPG did not adequately address tobacco dependence and its treatment.

Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking remains one of the few preventable factors associated with complications in pregnancy, and has serious long-term implications for women and babies. Smoking in pregnancy is decreasing in high-income countries, but is strongly associated with poverty and is increasing in low- to middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

In this sixth update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (13 November 2015), checked reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials, and quasi-randomised controlled trials of psychosocial smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data. Direct comparisons were conducted in RevMan, with meta-regression conducted in STATA 14.

MAIN RESULTS

The overall quality of evidence was moderate to high, with reductions in confidence due to imprecision and heterogeneity for some outcomes. One hundred and two trials with 120 intervention arms (studies) were included, with 88 trials (involving over 28,000 women) providing data on smoking abstinence in late pregnancy. Interventions were categorised as counselling, health education, feedback, incentives, social support, exercise and dissemination.In separate comparisons, there is high-quality evidence that counselling increased smoking cessation in late pregnancy compared with usual care (30 studies; average risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.73) and less intensive interventions (18 studies; average RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47). There was uncertainty whether counselling increased the chance of smoking cessation when provided as one component of a broader maternal health intervention or comparing one type of counselling with another. In studies comparing counselling and usual care (largest comparison), it was unclear whether interventions prevented smoking relapse among women who had stopped smoking spontaneously in early pregnancy. However, a clear effect was seen in smoking abstinence at zero to five months postpartum (11 studies; average RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.01) and 12 to 17 months (two studies, average RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.96), with a borderline effect at six to 11 months (six studies; average RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77). In other comparisons, the effect was unclear for most secondary outcomes, but sample sizes were small.Evidence suggests a borderline effect of health education compared with usual care (five studies; average RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55), but the quality was downgraded to moderate as the effect was unclear when compared with less intensive interventions (four studies; average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.70), alternative interventions (one study; RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.19 to 18.60), or when smoking cessation health education was provided as one component of a broader maternal health intervention.There was evidence feedback increased smoking cessation when compared with usual care and provided in conjunction with other strategies, such as counselling (average RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 10.21), but the confidence in the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate as this was based on only two studies and the effect was uncertain when feedback was compared to less intensive interventions (three studies; average RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.20).High-quality evidence suggests incentive-based interventions are effective when compared with an alternative (non-contingent incentive) intervention (four studies; RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.09). However pooled effects were not calculable for comparisons with usual care or less intensive interventions (substantial heterogeneity, I2 = 93%).High-quality evidence suggests the effect is unclear in social support interventions provided by peers (six studies; average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.07), in a single trial of support provided by partners, or when social support for smoking cessation was provided as part of a broader intervention to improve maternal health.The effect was unclear in single interventions of exercise compared to usual care (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.01) and dissemination of counselling (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.32).Importantly, high-quality evidence from pooled results demonstrated that women who received psychosocial interventions had a 17% reduction in infants born with low birthweight, a significantly higher mean birthweight (mean difference (MD) 55.60 g, 95% CI 29.82 to 81.38 g higher) and a 22% reduction in neonatal intensive care admissions. However the difference in preterm births and stillbirths was unclear. There did not appear to be adverse psychological effects from the interventions.The intensity of support women received in both the intervention and comparison groups has increased over time, with higher-intensity interventions more likely to have higher-intensity comparisons, potentially explaining why no clear differences were seen with increasing intervention intensity in meta-regression analyses. Among meta-regression analyses: studies classified as having 'unclear' implementation and unequal baseline characteristics were less effective than other studies. There was no clear difference between trials implemented by researchers (efficacy studies), and those implemented by routine pregnancy staff (effectiveness studies), however there was uncertainty in the effectiveness of counselling in four dissemination trials where the focus on the intervention was at an organisational level. The pooled effects were similar in interventions provided for women classified as having predominantly low socio-economic status, compared to other women. The effect was significant in interventions among women from ethnic minority groups; however not among indigenous women. There were similar effect sizes in trials with biochemically validated smoking abstinence and those with self-reported abstinence. It was unclear whether incorporating use of self-help manuals or telephone support increased the effectiveness of interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial interventions to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy can increase the proportion of women who stop smoking in late pregnancy and the proportion of infants born low birthweight. Counselling, feedback and incentives appear to be effective, however the characteristics and context of the interventions should be carefully considered. The effect of health education and social support is less clear. New trials have been published during the preparation of this review and will be included in the next update.

System change interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

System change interventions for smoking cessation are policies and practices designed by organizations to integrate the identification of smokers and the subsequent offering of evidence-based nicotine dependence treatments into usual care. Such strategies have the potential to improve the provision of smoking cessation support in healthcare settings, and cessation outcomes among those who use them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of system change interventions within healthcare settings, for increasing smoking cessation or the provision of smoking cessation care, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in February 2016. We also searched clinical trial registries: WHO clinical trial registry, US National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical trial registry. We checked 'grey' literature, and handsearched bibliographies of relevant papers and publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and interrupted time series studies that evaluated a system change intervention, which included identification of all smokers and subsequent offering of evidence-based nicotine dependence treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data from eligible studies on study settings, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest (both cessation and system-level outcomes). For cessation outcomes, we used the strictest available criteria to define abstinence. System-level outcomes included assessment and documentation of smoking status, provision of advice to quit or cessation counselling, referral and enrolment in quitline services, and prescribing of cessation medications. We assessed risks of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook and categorized each study as being at high, low or unclear risk of bias. We used a narrative synthesis to describe the effectiveness of the interventions on various outcomes, because of significant heterogeneity among studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven cluster-randomized controlled studies in this review. We rated the quality of evidence as very low or low, depending on the outcome, according to the GRADE standard. Evidence of efficacy was equivocal for abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up (four studies), and for the secondary outcome 'prescribing of smoking cessation medications' (two studies). Four studies evaluated changes in provision of smoking cessation counselling and three favoured the intervention. There were significant improvements in documentation of smoking status (one study), quitline referral (two studies) and quitline enrolment (two studies). Other secondary endpoints, such as asking about tobacco use (three studies) and advising to quit (three studies), also indicated some positive effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that system change interventions for smoking cessation may not be effective in achieving increased cessation rates, but have been shown to improve process outcomes, such as documentation of smoking status, provision of cessation counselling and referral to smoking cessation services. However, as the available research is limited we are not able to draw strong conclusions. There is a need for additional high-quality research to explore the impact of system change interventions on both cessation and system-level outcomes.

The Breathing for Life Trial: a randomised controlled trial of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO)-based management of asthma during pregnancy and its impact on perinatal outcomes and infant and childhood respiratory health

BACKGROUND

Asthma exacerbations are common during pregnancy and associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Adjusting asthma treatment based on airway inflammation rather than symptoms reduces the exacerbation rate by 50 %. The Breathing for Life Trial (BLT) will test whether this approach also improves perinatal outcomes.

METHODS/DESIGN

BLT is a multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial of asthma management guided by fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO, a marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation) compared to usual care, with prospective infant follow-up. Women with physician-diagnosed asthma, asthma symptoms and/or medication use in the previous 12 months, who are 12-22 weeks gestation, will be eligible for inclusion. Women randomised to the control group will have one clinical assessment of their asthma, including self-management education. Any treatment changes will be made by their general practitioner. Women randomised to the intervention group will have clinical assessments every 3-6 weeks during pregnancy, and asthma treatments will be adjusted every second visit based on an algorithm which uses FENO to adjust inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose (increase in dose when FENO >29 parts per billion (ppb), decrease in dose when FENO <19 ppb, and no change when FENO is between 19 and 29 ppb). A long acting beta agonist (LABA) will be added when symptoms remain uncontrolled. Both the control and intervention groups will report on exacerbations at a postpartum phone interview. The primary outcome is adverse perinatal outcome (a composite measure including preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction, neonatal hospitalisation at birth or perinatal mortality), assessed from hospital records. Secondary outcomes will be each component of the primary outcome, maternal exacerbations requiring medical intervention during pregnancy (both smokers and non-smokers), and hospitalisation and emergency department presentation for wheeze, bronchiolitis or croup in the first 12 months of infancy. Outcome assessment and statistical analysis of the primary outcome will be blinded. To detect a reduction in adverse perinatal outcomes from 35 % to 26 %, 600 pregnant women with asthma per group are required.

DISCUSSION

This trial will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a FENO-based management strategy in improving perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with asthma. If successful, this would improve the management of pregnant women with asthma worldwide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000202763 .

Provision of antenatal smoking cessation support: a survey with pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend assessment of smoking status, with advice and support for smoking cessation, as a routine and integral part of antenatal care. Approximately 50% of pregnant Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women smoke through pregnancy, 3 times the rate of other pregnant Australian women. This study describes smoking cessation assessment and support reported by pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women.

METHODS

Surveys of 261 pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in New South Wales and the Northern Territory, Australia assessed women's reports of assessment, advice and support for smoking cessation from antenatal providers.

RESULTS

The majority of women (90%, 95% CI = 85, 93) reported being asked their smoking status; 81% (95% CI = 73, 87) of smokers reported being advised to stop smoking and 62% (95% CI = 53, 71) of smokers reported being offered support to quit.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite most pregnant women who smoke reporting advice and support to quit, the persisting high prevalence of smoking suggests that this support is insufficient to overcome the many factors pushing women to smoke. Improving the support provided to women will require empowering the antenatal providers with adequate skills, appropriate resources and effective interventions. Current guidelines are based on research from non-Indigenous populations, as there are no published effective interventions for Indigenous pregnant women. Trials of interventions designed specifically for pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are urgently needed, as are approaches aimed at reducing uptake of smoking.

Smoking cessation in pregnancy: psychosocial interventions and patient-focused perspectives

BACKGROUND

Smoking during pregnancy causes obstetric and fetal complications, and smoking cessation may have great benefits for the mother and the child. However, some pregnant women continue smoking even in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature addressing the prevalence of smoking during pregnancy, explore psychosocial factors associated with smoking, and review the evidence of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation during pregnancy in recent years.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Computerized Internet search results in PubMed for the years spanning from 2004 to 2014, as well as references cited in articles, were reviewed. A search for the keywords "smoking cessation pregnancy" and "intervention" and "clinical trials" yielded 52 citations. Thirty-five citations were identified as useful to this review for the evidence of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation during pregnancy.

RESULTS

The prevalence of smoking during pregnancy differs by country, reflecting the countries' social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. Women who had socioeconomic disadvantages, problems in their interpersonal relationships, higher stress, depression, less social support, and who engaged in health-risk behaviors were more prone to smoking during pregnancy. Psychosocial interventions, such as counseling, are effective methods for increasing smoking cessation.

CONCLUSION

Smokers may have various psychosocial problems in addition to health problems. It is important to understand each individual's social situation or psychosocial characteristics, and a psychosocial intervention focused on the characteristics of the individual is required.

Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking in pregnancy remains one of the few preventable factors associated with complications in pregnancy, stillbirth, low birthweight and preterm birth and has serious long-term implications for women and babies. Smoking in pregnancy is decreasing in high-income countries, but is strongly associated with poverty and increasing in low- to middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

In this fifth update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 March 2013), checked reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors to locate additional unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials, randomised cross-over trials, and quasi-randomised controlled trials (with allocation by maternal birth date or hospital record number) of psychosocial smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data. Direct comparisons were conducted in RevMan, and subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were conducted in SPSS.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-six trials were included in this updated review, with 77 trials (involving over 29,000 women) providing data on smoking abstinence in late pregnancy.In separate comparisons, counselling interventions demonstrated a significant effect compared with usual care (27 studies; average risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.75), and a borderline effect compared with less intensive interventions (16 studies; average RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82). However, a significant effect was only seen in subsets where counselling was provided in conjunction with other strategies. It was unclear whether any type of counselling strategy is more effective than others (one study; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.53). In studies comparing counselling and usual care (the largest comparison), it was unclear whether interventions prevented smoking relapse among women who had stopped smoking spontaneously in early pregnancy (eight studies; average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21). However, a clear effect was seen in smoking abstinence at zero to five months postpartum (10 studies; average RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.95), a borderline effect at six to 11 months (six studies; average RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77), and a significant effect at 12 to 17 months (two studies, average RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.96), but not in the longer term. In other comparisons, the effect was not significantly different from the null effect for most secondary outcomes, but sample sizes were small.Incentive-based interventions had the largest effect size compared with a less intensive intervention (one study; RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.84 to 7.23) and an alternative intervention (one study; RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.48 to 11.11).Feedback interventions demonstrated a significant effect only when compared with usual care and provided in conjunction with other strategies, such as counselling (two studies; average RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 10.21), but the effect was unclear when compared with a less intensive intervention (two studies; average RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.12).The effect of health education was unclear when compared with usual care (three studies; average RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.59) or less intensive interventions (two studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.31).Social support interventions appeared effective when provided by peers (five studies; average RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19), but the effect was unclear in a single trial of support provided by partners.The effects were mixed where the smoking interventions were provided as part of broader interventions to improve maternal health, rather than targeted smoking cessation interventions.Subgroup analyses on primary outcome for all studies showed the intensity of interventions and comparisons has increased over time, with higher intensity interventions more likely to have higher intensity comparisons. While there was no significant difference, trials where the comparison group received usual care had the largest pooled effect size (37 studies; average RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.44), with lower effect sizes when the comparison group received less intensive interventions (30 studies; average RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.31), or alternative interventions (two studies; average RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.53). More recent studies included in this update had a lower effect size (20 studies; average RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.59), I(2)= 3%, compared to those in the previous version of the review (50 studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.73). There were similar effect sizes in trials with biochemically validated smoking abstinence (49 studies; average RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67) and those with self-reported abstinence (20 studies; average RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.87). There was no significant difference between trials implemented by researchers (efficacy studies), and those implemented by routine pregnancy staff (effectiveness studies), however the effect was unclear in three dissemination trials of counselling interventions where the focus on the intervention was at an organisational level (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.50). The pooled effects were similar in interventions provided for women with predominantly low socio-economic status (44 studies; average RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.66), compared to other women (26 studies; average RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79); though the effect was unclear in interventions among women from ethnic minority groups (five studies; average RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.40) and aboriginal women (two studies; average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.67). Importantly, pooled results demonstrated that women who received psychosocial interventions had an 18% reduction in preterm births (14 studies; average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96), and infants born with low birthweight (14 studies; average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94). There did not appear to be any adverse effects from the psychosocial interventions, and three studies measured an improvement in women's psychological wellbeing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial interventions to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy can increase the proportion of women who stop smoking in late pregnancy, and reduce low birthweight and preterm births.

Evaluation of the 'healthy start to pregnancy' early antenatal health promotion workshop: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy is an ideal time to encourage healthy lifestyles as most women access health services and are more receptive to health messages; however few effective interventions exist. The aim of this research was to deliver a low-intensity, dietitian-led behavior change workshop at a Maternity Hospital to influence behaviors with demonstrated health outcomes.

METHODS

Workshop effectiveness was evaluated using an RCT; 'usual care' women (n = 182) received a nutrition resource at their first antenatal visit and 'intervention' women also attended a one-hour 'Healthy Start to Pregnancy' workshop (n = 178). Dietary intake, physical activity levels, gestational weight gain knowledge, smoking cessation, and intention to breastfeed were assessed at service-entry and 12 weeks later. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses examined change over time between groups.

RESULTS

Approximately half (48.3%) the intervention women attended the workshop and overall response rate at time 2 was 67.2%. Significantly more women in the intervention met pregnancy fruit guidelines at time 2 (+4.3%, p = 0.011) and had a clinically-relevant increase in physical activity (+27 minutes/week) compared with women who only received the resource (ITT). Women who attended the workshop increased their consumption of serves of fruit (+0.4 serves/day, p = 0.004), vegetables (+0.4 serves/day, p = 0.006), met fruit guidelines (+11.9%, p < 0.001), had a higher diet quality score (p = 0.027) and clinically-relevant increases in physical activity (+21.3 minutes/week) compared with those who only received the resource (PP).

CONCLUSIONS

The Healthy Start to Pregnancy workshop attendance facilitates improvements in important health behaviors. Service changes and accessibility issues are required to assist women's workshop attendance to allow more women to benefit from the workshop's effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000867998.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.

Using breath carbon monoxide to validate self-reported tobacco smoking in remote Australian Indigenous communities

Background

This paper examines the specificity and sensitivity of a breath carbon monoxide (BCO) test and optimum BCO cutoff level for validating self-reported tobacco smoking in Indigenous Australians in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory (NT).

Methods

In a sample of 400 people (≥16 years) interviewed about tobacco use in three communities, both self-reported smoking and BCO data were recorded for 309 study participants. Of these, 249 reported smoking tobacco within the preceding 24 hours, and 60 reported they had never smoked or had not smoked tobacco for ≥6 months. The sample was opportunistically recruited using quotas to reflect age and gender balances in the communities where the combined Indigenous populations comprised 1,104 males and 1,215 females (≥16 years). Local Indigenous research workers assisted researchers in interviewing participants and facilitating BCO tests using a portable hand-held analyzer.

Results

A BCO cutoff of ≥7 parts per million (ppm) provided good agreement between self-report and BCO (96.0% sensitivity, 93.3% specificity). An alternative cutoff of ≥5 ppm increased sensitivity from 96.0% to 99.6% with no change in specificity (93.3%). With data for two self-reported nonsmokers who also reported that they smoked cannabis removed from the analysis, specificity increased to 96.6%.

Conclusion

In these disadvantaged Indigenous populations, where data describing smoking are few, testing for BCO provides a practical, noninvasive, and immediate method to validate self-reported smoking. In further studies of tobacco smoking in these populations, cannabis use should be considered where self-reported nonsmokers show high BCO.

Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking in pregnancy remains one of the few preventable factors associated with complications in pregnancy, low birthweight, preterm birth and has serious long-term health implications for women and babies. Smoking in pregnancy is decreasing in high-income countries and increasing in low- to middle-income countries and is strongly associated with poverty, low educational attainment, poor social support and psychological illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (June 2008), the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Trials Register (June 2008), EMBASE, PsycLIT, and CINAHL (all from January 2003 to June 2008). We contacted trial authors to locate additional unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials where smoking cessation during pregnancy was a primary aim of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were identified and data extracted by one person and checked by a second. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the effect of risk of trial bias, intensity of the intervention and main intervention strategy used.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-two trials are included. Fifty-six randomised controlled trials (over 20,000 pregnant women) and nine cluster-randomised trials (over 5000 pregnant women) provided data on smoking cessation outcomes.There was a significant reduction in smoking in late pregnancy following interventions (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), an absolute difference of six in 100 women who stopped smoking during pregnancy. However, there is significant heterogeneity in the combined data (I(2) > 60%). In the trials with the lowest risk of bias, the interventions had less effect (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.99), and lower heterogeneity (I(2) = 36%). Eight trials of smoking relapse prevention (over 1000 women) showed no statistically significant reduction in relapse.Smoking cessation interventions reduced low birthweight (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95) and preterm birth (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98), and there was a 53.91g (95% CI 10.44 g to 95.38 g) increase in mean birthweight. There were no statistically significant differences in neonatal intensive care unit admissions, very low birthweight, stillbirths, perinatal or neonatal mortality but these analyses had very limited power.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy reduce the proportion of women who continue to smoke in late pregnancy, and reduce low birthweight and preterm birth. Smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy need to be implemented in all maternity care settings. Given the difficulty many pregnant women addicted to tobacco have quitting during pregnancy, population-based measures to reduce smoking and social inequalities should be supported.

Increasing hospital-wide delivery of smoking cessation care for nicotine-dependent in-patients: a multi-strategic intervention trial

AIMS, DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: Smoking care provision to in-patients is important in assisting smoking cessation and for management of nicotine withdrawal. Limited studies have reported the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the hospital-wide provision of such care. A quasi-experimental matched-pair trial, involving two intervention and two control hospitals in NSW, Australia, investigated whether a multi-strategic intervention increased hospital-wide smoking care provision.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Patient surveys (n = 274-347 per experimental condition), medical notes audits (n = 181-228) and health professional surveys (n = 229-302) were used to collect outcome data at baseline and follow-up.

FINDINGS

Significantly greater increases in intervention hospitals compared to control hospitals were found for patient-reported offer of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (intervention 34% versus control 12%), provision of NRT (16% versus 4%) and provision of written resources (11% versus 2%), and for the recording in medical notes of smoking management discussion (13% versus 3%), offer of NRT (24% versus 3%) and provision of NRT (21% versus 5%). Intervention group health professionals reported significantly greater increases in the mean estimate of patients who: had their smoking management discussed (30% versus 17%); were offered or provided with NRT (30% versus 18%); were asked their intention to smoke post-discharge (22% versus 10%); and were provided with discharge NRT (21% versus 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a multi-strategic intervention is effective in increasing hospital smoking care delivery, particularly the provision of NRT. Research is required to identify methods to increase further the delivery of this and other forms of smoking care.

Implementation of a clinical practice guideline for smoking cessation in a public antenatal care setting

BACKGROUND

Despite high level evidence showing that antenatal smoking cessation programs are effective in reducing the number of women who smoke during pregnancy and the number of low birthweight and preterm births, few Australian hospitals have adopted a systematic approach to assist pregnant women to stop smoking.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a smoking cessation guideline, developed specifically for clinicians providing antenatal care in public maternity hospitals, combined with an implementation program on the uptake of evidence-based practice.

METHODS

A clinical practice guideline was developed and an implementation strategy was tested, using a prospective before-and-after study design, at the Mater Mothers' Hospital in Brisbane. Women were surveyed in late pregnancy, pre- and post-implementation. The primary outcome measures were women's report of appropriate smoking cessation support received, specifically, information brochures and referral to Quitline. Secondary outcome measures included women's report of smoking status in late pregnancy and relapse rates.

RESULTS

Post-implementation, more women reported receiving written materials on smoking cessation (76% vs 35%; relative risk (RR) 3.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7, 4.2) and referral to Quitline (67% vs 14%; RR 4.9; 95% CI 3.0, 8.0). While not statistically significant, fewer women post-implementation reported smoking in late pregnancy (19.5% vs 16.7%) and fewer reported smoking > 10 cigarettes per day (38% vs 25%).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical practice guidelines specifically designed for a public maternity care setting combined with an implementation program resulted in an increase in evidence-based practice with some indication of improved smoking behaviour for women.