Opinions of women from deprived communities on national tobacco control measures in England

Memon, Anjum; Barber, John; Rumsby, Emma; Parker, Samantha; Mohebati, Lisa; Visser, Richard O. de; Venables, S; Fairhurst, Anna; Lawson, Kate; Sundin, Josefin

doi:10.3109/14659891.2016.1140237

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8,33,42,43 Additionally, individuals may be less inclined to report particular symptoms to their doctor than others, due to embarrassment or fear of wasting the doctor's time. 1,44 Further to this, awareness of the possible cancer symp- 48,49 Results indicate differential impacts of repeating campaigns for the same cancer types within a short-time period; for example, for primary care attendances, the impacts of the first and second bladder and kidney cancer campaigns were similar, which contrasts with the diminishing impacts of the second compared with the first lung cancer campaign. Further work would be required to better understand the optimal "spacing" of repeat campaigns, including study of the message recall over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reviewing the impact of 11 national Be Clear on Cancer public awareness campaigns, England, 2012 to 2016: A synthesis of published evaluation results

Lai

Mak

Bright

et al. 2020

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Be Clear on Cancer (BCoC) campaigns have run in England since 2010. They aim to raise awareness of possible cancer symptoms, encouraging people to consult a general practice with these symptoms. Our study provides an overview of the impact of 11 national campaigns, for bowel, lung, bladder and kidney, breast and oesophago‐gastric cancers. We synthesised existing results for each campaign covering seven clinical metrics across the patient pathway from primary care attendances to one‐year net survival. For each metric, “before” and “after” periods were compared to assess change potentially related to the campaign. Results show that primary care attendances for campaign‐related symptoms increased for 9 of 10 campaigns and relevant urgent referrals for suspected cancer increased above general trends for 9 of 11 campaigns. Diagnostic tests increased for 6 of 11 campaigns. For 7 of 11 campaigns, there were increases in cancer diagnoses resulting from an urgent referral for suspected cancer. There were sustained periods where more cancers were diagnosed than expected for 8 of 10 campaigns, with higher than expected proportions diagnosed at an early stage for sustained periods for 4 of 10 campaigns. There was no impact on survival. In summary, there is evidence that the BCoC campaigns impact help‐seeking by patients and referral patterns by general practitioners, with some impact on diagnosis (incidence and stage). There was no clear evidence of impact on survival.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Similarly, there may be fewer people experiencing symptoms they have not reported to their doctor at the time of a later campaign due to sustained effects of previous campaigns. Additionally, repeated campaigns for the same site may risk desensitisation, which is a persistent issue reported in evaluations of tobacco control campaigns 48,49 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing the impact of 11 national Be Clear on Cancer public awareness campaigns, England, 2012 to 2016: A synthesis of published evaluation results

Lai

Mak

Bright

et al. 2020

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is evidence that some pregnant and postnatal women may report that they do not smoke or have quit smoking when they currently smoke. According to biochemical assessments, as many as 23% to 35% of pregnant and postnatal women did not divulge actively smoking, [43][44][45] a finding that may not be surprising given their perceptions of the social disapproval of maternal smoking [24][25][26] and their psychological discomfort with smoking. [18][19][20][21] A number of physiological, psychosocial, and demographic factors have been identified as risks for maternal smoking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pregnant and postnatal women’s experiences of interacting with health care providers about their tobacco smoking: a qualitative systematic review

Small

Maddigan

Swab

et al. 2022

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this review was twofold: i) to comprehensively identify the best available evidence about the experiences of women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy or postnatally (or both) concerning health care providers’ interactions with them about their smoking, when such interactions occurred during contact for prenatal or postnatal health care in any health care setting; and ii) to synthesize the research findings for recommendations to strengthen health care providers’ interventions regarding smoking during pregnancy and smoking during the postnatal period. Introduction: Maternal tobacco smoking during pregnancy and maternal tobacco smoking postnatally pose serious health risks for the woman, fetus, and offspring, whereas maternal smoking cessation has beneficial health effects. Given the importance of health care providers’ interactions with pregnant and postnatal women for smoking cessation care, it is essential to understand women’s experiences of such interactions. Inclusion criteria: Studies considered for this review had qualitative research findings about the experiences of women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy or postnatally (or both) in relation to health care providers’ interactions with them about their smoking. Methods: The review was conducted using the JBI approach to qualitative systematic reviews. Published studies were sought through 6 academic databases (eg, CINAHL, MEDLINE). Unpublished studies were searched in 6 gray literature sources (eg, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar). Reference lists of retrieved records were also searched. The searches occurred in October and November 2020; no country, language, or date limits were applied. Study selection involved title and abstract screening, full-text examination, and critical appraisal of all studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Study characteristics and research findings were extracted from the included studies. Study selection and extraction of findings were conducted by 2 reviewers independently; differences between reviewers were resolved through consensus. The research findings were categorized, and the categories were aggregated into a set of synthesized findings. The synthesized findings were assigned confidence scores. The categories and finalized synthesized findings were agreed upon by all reviewers. Results: The 57 included studies varied in qualitative research designs and in methodological quality (from mostly low to high). There were approximately 1092 eligible participants, and 250 credible and unequivocal research findings. The research findings yielded 14 categories and 6 synthesized findings with low to very low confidence scores. Some women who smoked tobacco during pregnancy and some women who smoked tobacco postnatally lacked supportive interactions by health care providers regarding their smoking; other women experienced supportive interactions by health care providers. Women were adversely impacted when health care providers’ interactions lacked supportive...

show abstract

Opinions of women from deprived communities on national tobacco control measures in England

Cited by 2 publications

References 28 publications

Reviewing the impact of 11 national Be Clear on Cancer public awareness campaigns, England, 2012 to 2016: A synthesis of published evaluation results

Reviewing the impact of 11 national Be Clear on Cancer public awareness campaigns, England, 2012 to 2016: A synthesis of published evaluation results

Pregnant and postnatal women’s experiences of interacting with health care providers about their tobacco smoking: a qualitative systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About