Chamberlain Catherine, O'Mara-Eves Alison, Porter Jessie, Coleman Tim, Perlen Susan M, Thomas James, McKenzie Joanne E
Aboriginal Health Domain, Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute, L4/99 Commercial Rd, Prahan, Melbourne, Vic, Australia, 3004.
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 14;2(2):CD001055. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001055.pub5.
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.
To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes.
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.
Randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials, and quasi-randomised controlled trials of psychosocial smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy.
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.
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, I = 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.
吸烟仍然是少数与妊娠并发症相关的可预防因素之一,对女性和婴儿有严重的长期影响。高收入国家孕期吸烟率正在下降,但吸烟与贫困密切相关,在低收入和中等收入国家吸烟率正在上升。
评估孕期戒烟干预措施对吸烟行为和围产期健康结局的影响。
在本次第六次更新中,我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2015年11月13日),检查了检索到的研究的参考文献列表,并联系了试验作者。
孕期心理社会戒烟干预措施的随机对照试验、整群随机试验和半随机对照试验。
两位综述作者独立评估试验是否纳入及试验质量,并提取数据。在RevMan中进行直接比较,在STATA 14中进行Meta回归。
证据的总体质量为中等至高,某些结局因不精确性和异质性导致可信度降低。纳入了102项试验,共120个干预组(研究),其中88项试验(涉及超过28000名女性)提供了孕晚期戒烟的数据。干预措施分为咨询、健康教育、反馈、激励、社会支持、运动和传播。在单独的比较中,有高质量证据表明,与常规护理相比,咨询可提高孕晚期的戒烟率(30项研究;平均风险比(RR)1.44,95%置信区间(CI)1.19至1.73),与强度较低的干预措施相比也是如此(18项研究;平均RR 1.25,95%CI 1.07至1.47)。当咨询作为更广泛的孕产妇健康干预措施的一部分提供,或比较一种咨询与另一种咨询时,咨询是否增加戒烟机会尚不确定。在比较咨询与常规护理的研究(最大的比较)中,不清楚干预措施是否能防止孕早期自发戒烟的女性复吸。然而,在产后0至5个月(11项研究;平均RR 1.59,95%CI 1.26至2.01)和12至17个月(2项研究,平均RR 2.20,95%CI 1.23至3.96)的戒烟方面有明显效果,但在6至11个月时有临界效果(6项研究;平均RR 1.33,95%CI 1.00至1.77)。在其他比较中,大多数次要结局的效果不明确,但样本量较小。有证据表明,与常规护理相比,健康教育有临界效果(5项研究;平均RR 1.59,95%CI 0.99至2.55),但与强度较低的干预措施相比(4项研究;平均RR 1.20,95%CI 0.85至1.70)、替代干预措施(1项研究;RR 1.88,95%CI 0.19至18.60)相比,或当戒烟健康教育作为更广泛的孕产妇健康干预措施的一部分提供时,效果不明确时,质量被降级为中等。有证据表明,与常规护理相比,反馈与咨询等其他策略联合使用时可增加戒烟率(平均RR 4.39,95%CI 1.89至10.21),但证据质量的可信度被降级为中等,因为这仅基于两项研究,且与强度较低的干预措施相比时效果不确定(3项研究;平均RR 1.29,95%CI 0.75至2.20)。高质量证据表明,与替代(非偶然激励)干预措施相比,基于激励的干预措施是有效的(4项研究;RR 2.36,95%CI 1.36至4.09)。然而,与常规护理或强度较低的干预措施比较时,合并效应无法计算(异质性很大,I² = 93%)。高质量证据表明,同伴提供的社会支持干预措施效果不明确(6项研究;平均RR 1.42,95%CI 0.98至2.07),在伴侣提供支持的一项试验中,或当戒烟社会支持作为改善孕产妇健康的更广泛干预措施的一部分提供时也是如此。与常规护理相比,单一的运动干预措施效果不明确(RR 1.20,95%CI 0.72至2.01),咨询传播的效果也不明确(RR 1.63,95%CI 0.62至4.32)。重要的是,汇总结果的高质量证据表明,接受心理社会干预的女性低出生体重儿的出生比例降低了17%,平均出生体重显著更高(平均差异(MD)55.60 g,95%CI高29.82至81.38 g),新生儿重症监护病房入院率降低了22%。然而,早产和死产的差异不明确。干预措施似乎没有不良心理影响。随着时间的推移,干预组和对照组女性获得的支持强度都有所增加,高强度干预措施更有可能有高强度的对照,这可能解释了为什么在Meta回归分析中随着干预强度的增加没有看到明显差异。在Meta回归分析中:分类为“不明确”实施且基线特征不平等的研究比其他研究效果更差。研究人员实施的试验(疗效研究)和常规孕期工作人员实施的试验(有效性研究)之间没有明显差异,然而在四项以组织层面为重点的传播试验中,咨询的有效性存在不确定性。与其他女性相比,为社会经济地位主要较低的女性提供的干预措施的合并效应相似。在少数族裔女性中的干预措施效果显著;然而在原住民女性中则不然。在经过生化验证的戒烟试验和自我报告戒烟的试验中,效应大小相似。尚不清楚纳入使用自助手册或电话支持是否会提高干预措施的有效性。
支持孕期女性戒烟的心理社会干预措施可提高孕晚期戒烟女性的比例以及降低低出生体重儿的出生比例。咨询、反馈和激励似乎是有效的,然而应仔细考虑干预措施的特征和背景。健康教育和社会支持的效果不太明确。在本综述编写期间已发表了新的试验,将纳入下次更新。