IS SMOKING INTERVENTION IN GENERAL-PRACTICE MORE SUCCESSFUL AMONG PREGNANT THAN NONPREGNANT WOMEN

Citation
K. Haug et al., IS SMOKING INTERVENTION IN GENERAL-PRACTICE MORE SUCCESSFUL AMONG PREGNANT THAN NONPREGNANT WOMEN, Family practice, 11(2), 1994, pp. 111-116
Citations number
NO
Categorie Soggetti
Medicine, General & Internal
Journal title
ISSN journal
02632136
Volume
11
Issue
2
Year of publication
1994
Pages
111 - 116
Database
ISI
SICI code
0263-2136(1994)11:2<111:ISIIGM>2.0.ZU;2-2
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a simple smo king intervention programme, carried out by a large number of general practitioners (GPs) among pregnant and non-pregnant women. Four groups of women were defined by the dichotomies pregnant versus non-pregnant and intervention versus control. The intervention was semistructured, using a flip-over and a booklet, and it was implemented in an ordinar y sequence of consultations. The study involved 187 GPs in western Nor way. The subjects were 350 daily smoking pregnant women and 274 daily smoking non-pregnant women, 18-34 years of age. The point prevalence a bstinence rate at 18 months was 15 and 20% for pregnant and non-pregna nt women, respectively, in the intervention groups, and 7% in the cont rol groups (P(pregnant) = 0.06, P(non-pregnant) = 0.006). Twenty-five per cent of the pregnant women and 34% of the non-pregnant women repor ted that they had reduced their cigarette consumption, but had not sto pped smoking entirely. If we include all drop-outs as smokers, the con tinuous abstinence rate during 15 months was 6%/0% among pregnant wome n (intervention/control) and 5%/1% among non-pregnant women. Stopping smoking was associated with having a non-smoking partner (P = 0.001), and being encouraged to do so by their partner (P = 0.004). The preval ence of both pregnant and non-pregnant women who stopped smoking was h igher in the intervention than in the control groups. Pregnant women s topped smoking as frequently as non-pregnant individuals. However, con cerning mean daily cigarette consumption, a positive effect of the int ervention was only observed for the non-pregnant women. There is a pot ential for more women to become non-smokers during the periods of preg nancy and child infancy. GPs should receive more training in this spec ific health promotion effort. More effective, low cost smoking interve ntion programmes, designed for pregnant women should be explored.