Behavioral support interventions are used to help pregnant smokers stop; however, of those tested, few are proven effective. Systematic research developing effective pregnancy-specific behavior change techniques (BCTs) is ongoing. This paper reports contributory work identifying potentially-effective BCTs relative to known important barriers and facilitators (B&Fs) to smoking cessation in pregnancy; to detect priority areas for BCTs development. A Nominal Group Technique with cessation experts (n = 12) elicited an expert consensus on B&Fs most influencing women’s smoking cessation and those most modifiable through behavioral support. Effective cessation interventions in randomized trials from a recent Cochrane review were coded into component BCTs using existing taxonomies. B&Fs were categorized using Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) domains. Matrices, mapping BCT taxonomies against TDF domains, were consulted to investigate the extent to which BCTs in existing interventions target key B&Fs. Experts ranked ‘smoking a social norm’ and ‘quitting not a priority’ as most important barriers and ‘desire to protect baby’ an important facilitator to quitting. From 14 trials, 23 potentially-effective BCTs were identified (e.g., ‘information about consequences). Most B&Fs fell into ‘Social Influences’, ‘Knowledge’, ‘Emotions’ and ‘Intentions’ TDF domains; few potentially-effective BCTs mapped onto every TDF domain. B&Fs identified by experts as important to cessation, are not sufficiently targeted by BCT’s currently within interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy.

BackgroundIn the UK, free smoking cessation support is available to pregnant women; only a minority accesses this. ‘Opt-out’ referrals to stop smoking services (SSS) are recommended by UK guidelines. These involve identifying pregnant smokers using exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) and referring them for support unless they object.MethodsTo assess the impact of ‘opt-out’ referrals for pregnant smokers on SSS uptake and effectiveness, we conducted a ‘before–after’ service development evaluation. In the 6-month ‘before’ period, there was a routine ‘opt-in’ referral system for self-reported smokers at antenatal ‘booking’ appointments. In the 6-month ‘after’ period, additional ‘opt-out’ referrals were introduced at the 12-week ultrasound appointments; women with CO≥4 ppm were referred to, and outcome data were collected from, local SSS.ResultsApproximately 2300 women attended antenatal care in each period. Before the implementation, 536 (23.4%) women reported smoking at ‘booking’ and 290 (12.7%) were referred to SSS. After the implementation, 524 (22.9%) women reported smoking at ‘booking’, an additional 156 smokers (6.8%) were identified via the ‘opt-out’ referrals and, in total, 421 (18.4%) were referred to SSS. Over twice as many women set a quit date with the SSS after ‘opt-out’ referrals were implemented (121 (5.3%, 95% CI 4.4% to 6.3%) compared to 57 (2.5%, 95% CI 1.9% to 3.2%) before implementation) and reported being abstinent 4 weeks later (93 (4.1%, 95% CI 3.3% to 4.9%) compared to 46 (2.0%, 1.5% to 2.7%) before implementation).ConclusionsIn a hospital with an ‘opt-in’ referral system, adding CO screening with ‘opt-out’ referrals as women attended ultrasound examinations doubled the numbers of pregnant smokers setting quit dates and reporting smoking cessation.

No abstract

Introduction: UK guidance recommends routine exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) screening for pregnant women and “opt-out” referrals to stop smoking services (SSS) of those with CO ≥ 4 ppm. We explored staff views on this referral pathway when implemented in one UK hospital Trust. Methods: Seventeen semi-structured interviews with staff involved in the implementation of the new referral pathway: six antenatal clinic staff (before and after implementation); five SSS staff (after). Data were analyzed using framework analysis. Results: Two themes were identified: (1) views on implementation of the pathway and (2) impact of the pathway on the women. Generally, staff felt that following training, referrals were less arduous to implement and better received than expected. The majority believed this pathway helped engage women motivated to quit and offered a unique chance to impart smoking cessation knowledge to hard-to-reach women, who might not otherwise contact SSS. An unexpected issue arose during implementation—dealing with non-smokers with high CO readings. Conclusions: According to staff, the “opt-out” referral pathway is an acceptable addition to routine antenatal care. It can help engage hard-to-reach women and educate them about the dangers of smoking in pregnancy. Incorporating advice on dealing with non-smokers with high CO into routine staff training could help future implementations.