Lesley Sinclair

Dr. Lesley Sinclair


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

23Years (2004-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
27 January 2015 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DTDavid Tappin
David Tappin
LBLinda Bauld
Linda Bauld
DPDavid Purves
David Purves
KBKathleen Boyd
Kathleen Boyd
LSLesley Sinclair
Lesley Sinclair
FTfor the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT) Team
for the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT) Team
Objective To assess the efficacy of a financial incentive added to routine specialist pregnancy stop smoking services versus routine care to help pregnant smokers quit. Design Phase II therapeutic exploratory single centre, individually randomised controlled parallel group superiority trial. Setting One large health board area with a materially deprived, inner city population in the west of Scotland, United Kingdom. Participants 612 self reported pregnant smokers in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde who were English speaking, at least 16 years of age, less than 24 weeks pregnant, and had an exhaled carbon monoxide breath test result of 7 ppm or more. 306 women were randomised to incentives and 306 to control. Interventions The control group received routine care, which was the offer of a face to face appointment to discuss smoking and cessation and, for those who attended and set a quit date, the offer of free nicotine replacement therapy for 10 weeks provided by pharmacy services, and four, weekly support phone calls. The intervention group received routine care plus the offer of up to £400 of shopping vouchers: £50 for attending a face to face appointment and setting a quit date; then another £50 if at four weeks’ post-quit date exhaled carbon monoxide confirmed quitting; a further £100 was provided for continued validated abstinence of exhaled carbon monoxide after 12 weeks; a final £200 voucher was provided for validated abstinence of exhaled carbon monoxide at 34-38 weeks’ gestation. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was cotinine verified cessation at 34-38 weeks’ gestation through saliva (<14.2 ng/mL) or urine (<44.7 ng/mL). Secondary outcomes included birth weight, engagement, and self reported quit at four weeks. Results Recruitment was extended from 12 to 15 months to achieve the target sample size. Follow-up continued until September 2013. Of the 306 women randomised, three controls opted out soon after enrolment; these women did not want their data to be used, leaving 306 intervention and 303 control group participants in the intention to treat analysis. No harms of financial incentives were documented. Significantly more smokers in the incentives group than control group stopped smoking: 69 (22.5%) versus 26 (8.6%). The relative risk of not smoking at the end of pregnancy was 2.63 (95% confidence interval 1.73 to 4.01) P<0.001. The absolute risk difference was 14.0% (95% confidence interval 8.2% to 19.7%). The number needed to treat (where financial incentives need to be offered to achieve one extra quitter in late pregnancy) was 7.2 (95% confidence interval 5.1 to 12.2). The mean birth weight was 3140 g (SD 600 g) in the incentives group and 3120 (SD 590) g in the control group (P=0.67). Conclusion This phase II randomised controlled trial provides substantial evidence for the efficacy of incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy; as this was only a single centre trial, incentives should now be tested in different types of pregnancy cessation services and in different parts of the United Kingdom. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN87508788.

1 January 2013 in Trials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CBCarol Bugge
Carol Bugge
BWBrian Williams
Brian Williams
Suzanne HagenSuzanne Hagen
Suzanne Hagen
JLJanet Logan
Janet Logan
CGCathryn Glazener
Cathryn Glazener
LSLesley Sinclair
Lesley Sinclair
Current Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on complex interventions advocates pilot trials and feasibility studies as part of a phased approach to the development, testing, and evaluation of healthcare interventions. In this paper we discuss the results of a recent feasibility study and pilot trial for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of pelvic floor muscle training for prolapse (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01136889). The ways in which researchers decide to respond to the results of feasibility work may have significant repercussions for both the nature and degree of tension between internal and external validity in a definitive trial.

20 September 2008 in International Urogynecology Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Suzanne HagenSuzanne Hagen
Suzanne Hagen
DSDiane Stark
Diane Stark
CGCathryn Glazener
Cathryn Glazener
LSLesley Sinclair
Lesley Sinclair
IRIan Ramsay
Ian Ramsay

12 December 2008 in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Suzanne HagenSuzanne Hagen
Suzanne Hagen
CGC Glazener
C Glazener
LSLesley Sinclair
Lesley Sinclair
DSD Stark
D Stark
CBC Bugge
C Bugge

16 May 2022 in Nature Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PHPeter Hajek
Peter Hajek
DPDunja Przulj
Dunja Przulj
FPFrancesca Pesola
Francesca Pesola
CGChris Ian Griffiths
Chris Ian Griffiths
RWRobert Walton
Robert Walton
KSKatie Myers Smith
Katie Myers Smith
Nicotine replacement therapy, in the form of nicotine patches, is commonly offered to pregnant women who smoke to help them to stop smoking, but this approach has limited efficacy in this population. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are also used by pregnant women who smoke but their safety and efficacy in pregnancy are unknown. Here, we report the results of a randomized controlled trial in 1,140 participants comparing refillable e-cigarettes with nicotine patches. Pregnant women who smoked were randomized to e-cigarettes (n = 569) or nicotine patches (n = 571). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary outcome, validated prolonged quit rates at the end of pregnancy in the two study arms were not significantly different (6.8% versus 4.4% in the e-cigarette and patch arms, respectively; relative risk (RR) = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.95–2.53, P = 0.08). However, some participants in the nicotine patch group also used e-cigarettes during the study. In a pre-specified sensitivity analysis excluding abstinent participants who used non-allocated products, e-cigarettes were more effective than patches (6.8% versus 3.6%; RR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.14–3.26, P = 0.02). Safety outcomes included adverse events and maternal and birth outcomes. The safety profile was found to be similar for both study products, however, low birthweight (<2,500 g) was less frequent in the e-cigarette arm (14.8% versus 9.6%; RR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47–0.90, P = 0.01). Other adverse events and birth outcomes were similar in the two study arms. E-cigarettes might help women who are pregnant to stop smoking, and their safety for use in pregnancy is similar to that of nicotine patches. ISRCTN62025374.

31 March 2016 in BMC Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KFKate Flemming
Kate Flemming
HGHilary Graham
Hilary Graham
DMDorothy McCaughan
Dorothy McCaughan
KAKathryn Angus
Kathryn Angus
LSLesley Sinclair
Lesley Sinclair
LBLinda Bauld
Linda Bauld
Reducing smoking in pregnancy is a policy priority in many countries and as a result there has been a rise in the development of services to help pregnant women to quit. A wide range of professionals are involved in providing these services, with midwives playing a particularly pivotal role. Understanding professionals’ experiences of providing smoking cessation support in pregnancy can help to inform the design of interventions as well as to improve routine care. A synthesis of qualitative research of health professionals’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to providing smoking cessation advice to women in pregnancy and the post-partum period was conducted using meta-ethnography. Searches were undertaken from 1990 to January 2015 using terms for maternity health professionals and smoking cessation advisors, pregnancy, post-partum, smoking, and qualitative in seven electronic databases. The review was reported in accordance with the ‘Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research’ (ENTREQ) statement. Eight studies reported in nine papers were included, reporting on the views of 190 health professionals/key informants, including 85 midwives and health visitors. The synthesis identified that both the professional role of participants and the organisational context in which they worked could act as either barriers or facilitators to an individual’s ability to provide smoking cessation support to pregnant or post-partum women. Underpinning these factors was an acknowledgment that the association between maternal smoking and social disadvantage was a considerable barrier to addressing and supporting smoking cessation The review identifies a role for professional education, both pre-qualification and in continuing professional development that will enable individuals to provide smoking cessation support to pregnant women. Key to the success of this education is recognising the centrality of the professional-client/patient relationship in any interaction. The review also highlights a widespread professional perception of the barriers associated with helping women give up smoking in pregnancy, particularly for those in disadvantaged circumstances. Improving the quality and accessibility of evidence on effective healthcare interventions, including evidence on ‘what works’ to support smoking cessation in disadvantaged groups, should therefore be a priority. CRD42013004170 .