Factors Associated With Exercise Participation and Attitudes to Exercise Among Pregnant Smokers

Attitudes, barriers and enablers to physical activity in pregnant women: a systematic review

QUESTION

What are the attitudes, barriers and enablers to physical activity perceived by pregnant women?

DESIGN

In a systematic literature review, eight electronic databases were searched: AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Joanna Briggs Institute, Medline, PsycInfo, SPORTDiscus (from database inception until June 2016) and PubMed (from 2011 until June 2016). Quantitative data expressed as proportions were meta-analysed. Data collected using Likert scales were synthesised descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using an inductive approach and content analysis. Findings were categorised as intrapersonal, interpersonal or environmental, based on a social-ecological framework.

PARTICIPANTS

Pregnant women.

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Attitudes and perceived barriers and enablers to physical activity during pregnancy.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles reporting data from 47 studies (7655 participants) were included. Data were collected using questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. Meta-analyses of proportions showed that pregnant women had positive attitudes towards physical activity, identifying it as important (0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98), beneficial (0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.83) and safe (0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92). This was supported by themes emerging in 15 qualitative studies that reported on attitudes (important, 12 studies; beneficial, 10 studies). Barriers to physical activity were predominantly intrapersonal such as fatigue, lack of time and pregnancy discomforts. Frequent enablers included maternal and foetal health benefits (intrapersonal), social support (interpersonal) and pregnancy-specific programs. Few environmental factors were identified. Little information was available about attitudes, barriers and enablers of physical activity for pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus who are at risk from inactivity.

CONCLUSION

Intrapersonal themes were the most frequently reported barriers and enablers to physical activity during pregnancy. Social support also played an enabling role. Person-centred strategies using behaviour change techniques should be used to address intrapersonal and social factors to translate pregnant women's positive attitudes into increased physical activity participation.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016037643. [Harrison AL, Taylor NF, Shields N, Frawley HC (2018) Attitudes, barriers and enablers to physical activity in pregnant women: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 24-32].

The London Exercise And Pregnant smokers (LEAP) trial: a randomised controlled trial of physical activity for smoking cessation in pregnancy with an economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Smoking during pregnancy is the main preventable cause of poor birth outcomes. Improved methods are needed to help women to stop smoking during pregnancy. Pregnancy provides a compelling rationale for physical activity (PA) interventions as cessation medication is contraindicated or ineffective, and an effective PA intervention could be highly cost-effective.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a PA intervention plus standard behavioural support for smoking cessation relative to behavioural support alone for achieving smoking cessation at the end of pregnancy.

DESIGN

Multicentre, two-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation with follow-up at the end of pregnancy and 6 months postnatally. Randomisation was stratified by centre and a computer-generated sequence was used to allocate participants using a 1 : 1 ratio.

SETTING

13 hospitals offering antenatal care in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Women between 10 and 24 weeks' gestation smoking five or more cigarettes a day before pregnancy and one or more during pregnancy.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to behavioural support for smoking cessation (control) or behavioural support plus a PA intervention consisting of supervised treadmill exercise plus PA consultations. Neither participants nor researchers were blinded to treatment allocation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported, continuous smoking abstinence between a quit date and end of pregnancy, validated by expired carbon monoxide and/or salivary cotinine. Secondary outcomes were maternal weight, depression, birth outcomes, withdrawal symptoms and urges to smoke. The economic evaluation investigated the costs of the PA intervention compared with the control intervention.

RESULTS

In total, 789 women were randomised (n = 394 PA, n = 395 control). Four were excluded post randomisation (two had been enrolled twice in sequential pregnancies and two were ineligible and randomised erroneously). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 785 participants (n = 392 PA, n = 393 control). There was no significant difference in the rate of abstinence at the end of pregnancy between the PA group (7.7%) and the control group (6.4%) [odds ratio for PA group abstinence 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 2.10]. For the PA group compared with the control group, there was a 33% (95% CI 14% to 56%), 28% (95% CI 7% to 52%) and 36% (95% CI 12% to 65%) significantly greater increase in self-reported minutes of moderate- and vigorous-intensity PA from baseline to 1 week, 4 weeks and 6 weeks respectively. Accelerometer data showed that there was no significant difference in PA levels between the groups. There were no significant differences between the groups for change in maternal weight, depression, withdrawal symptoms or urges to smoke. Adverse events and birth outcomes were similar between the groups except for there being significantly more caesarean births in the control group than in the PA group (28.7% vs. 21.3%; p < 0.023). The PA intervention was less costly than the control intervention by £35 per participant. This was mainly attributable to increased health-care usage in the control group. However, there was considerable statistical uncertainty around this estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

During pregnancy, offering an intervention combining supervised exercise and PA counselling does not add to the effectiveness of behavioural support for smoking cessation. Only 10% of participants had PA levels accessed by accelerometer and it is, therefore, unclear whether or not the lack of an effect on the primary outcome is the result of insufficient increases in PA. Research is needed to identify the smoking populations most suitable for PA interventions and methods for increasing PA adherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48600346.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 84. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2014, and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus in May 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme (which we considered the control in this review). Studies were required to recruit smokers or recent quitters and have a follow-up of six months or more. Studies that did not meet the full inclusion criteria because they only assessed the acute effects of exercise on smoking behaviour, or because the outcome was smoking reduction, are summarised but not formally included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences between studies in the characteristics of the interventions used we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis. We assessed risk of selection and attrition bias using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 trials with a total of 5,870 participants. The largest study was an internet trial with 2,318 participants, and eight trials had fewer than 30 people in each treatment arm. Studies varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes offered. Only one included study was judged to be at low risk of bias across all domains assessed. Four studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow-up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (p = 0.05) at the 12-month follow-up. Another study reported significantly higher abstinence rates at six month follow-up for a combined exercise and smoking cessation programme compared with brief smoking cessation advice. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow-up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow-up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only two of the 20 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation in the long term. All the other trials were too small to reliably exclude an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which may not have been sufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions in terms of both exercise intensity and intensity of support being provided, equal contact control conditions, and measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2011, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies including the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity'. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts and CINAHL using the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity' and 'smoking cessation'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme, recruiting smokers or recent quitters, and with a follow up of six months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences in studies we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 trials, seven of which had fewer than 25 people in each treatment arm. They varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes. Three studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (p = 0.05) at the 12-month follow up. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the 15 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation at a 12-month follow up. All the other trials were too small to reliably exclude an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which was insufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions, equal contact control conditions, and measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone or combined with a smoking cessation programme are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In July 2008, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies including the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity'. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts and CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme, recruiting smokers or recent quitters, and with a follow up of six months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences in studies we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 trials, six of which had fewer than 25 people in each treatment arm. They varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes. Three studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (P = 0.05) at the 12-month follow up. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the 13 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation at a 12-month follow up. All the other trials were too small to exclude reliably an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which was insufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions, equal contact control conditions, measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.

Physical activity as an aid to smoking cessation during pregnancy: two feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation have not been adequately tested in pregnancy and women are reluctant to use them. Behavioural support alone has a modest effect on cessation rates; therefore, more effective interventions are needed. Even moderate intensity physical activity (e.g. brisk walk) reduces urges to smoke and there is some evidence it increases cessation rates in non-pregnant smokers. Two pilot studies assessed i) the feasibility of recruiting pregnant women to a trial of physical activity for smoking cessation, ii) adherence to physical activity and iii) women' perceptions of the intervention.

METHODS

Pregnant smokers volunteered for an intervention combining smoking cessation support, physical activity counselling and supervised exercise (e.g. treadmill walking). The first study provided six weekly treatment sessions. The second study provided 15 sessions over eight weeks. Physical activity levels and continuous smoking abstinence (verified by expired carbon monoxide) were monitored up to eight months gestation.

RESULTS

Overall, 11.6% (32/277) of women recorded as smokers at their first antenatal booking visit were recruited. At eight months gestation 25% (8/32) of the women achieved continuous smoking abstinence. Abstinent women attended at least 85% of treatment sessions and 75% (6/8) achieved the target level of 110 minutes/week of physical activity at end-of-treatment. Increased physical activity was maintained at eight months gestation only in the second study. Women reported that the intervention helped weight management, reduced cigarette cravings and increased confidence for quitting.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to recruit pregnant smokers to a trial of physical activity for smoking cessation and this is likely to be popular. A large randomised controlled trial is needed to examine the efficacy of this intervention.