Background In 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. Methods To 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. Results Approximately 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). Conclusions In 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.

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.

Background and aims: Smoking in pregnancy causes substantial avoidable harm to mothers and offspring; nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may prevent this, and is used to help women to quit. A recently updated Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating impacts of NRT in pregnancy focuses primarily on efficacy data, but also reports adverse impacts from NRT. Here we identify and summarize NRT impacts on adverse pregnancy outcomes reported in non‐randomized controlled trials (non‐RCTs).Methods: Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of RCTs and non‐RCT studies of NRT in pregnancy, with design‐specific risk of bias assessment and grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) criteria applied to selected outcomes.Findings: Relevant Cochrane Review findings are reported alongside those from this new review. Seven RCTs were included; n = 2340. Nine meta‐analyses were performed; non‐statistically significant estimates indicated potentially reduced risk from NRT compared with smoking for mean birth weight, low birth weight, preterm birth, intensive care admissions, neonatal death, congenital anomalies and caesarean section and potentially increased risks for miscarriage and stillbirth. GRADE assessment for mean birth weight and miscarriage outcomes indicated ‘low’ confidence in findings.Twenty‐three non‐RCTs were included; n = 931 163. Eleven large studies from five routine health‐care cohorts reported clinical outcomes; 12 small studies investigated mainly physiological outcomes within in‐patient women given NRT. Findings from meta‐analyses for congenital anomalies, stillbirth and preterm birth were underpowered and not in a consistent direction; GRADE assessment of confidence in findings was ‘very low’. Routine health‐care studies were of higher quality, but implications of reported findings were unclear as there was inadequate measurement and reporting of women's smoking.Conclusions: Available evidence from randomized controlled trials and non‐randomized comparative studies does not currently provide clear evidence as to whether maternal use of nicotine replacement therapy during pregnancy is harmful to the fetus.

Background and aims: Smoking during pregnancy is strongly associated with negative pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. Some guidelines recommend nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation during pregnancy, but adherence with NRT is generally poor and could be partially explained by nicotine‐related safety concerns. We compared pregnant women's cotinine and nicotine exposures from smoking with those when they were abstinent from smoking and using NRT.Design: Systematic review with meta‐analysis and narrative reporting. Twelve studies were included: in most, only one type of NRT was used. Seven were quality‐assessed and judge of variable quality.Setting: Studies from any setting that reported nicotine or cotinine levels when smoking and later when abstinent and using NRT.Participants: Pregnant women who smoked and became abstinent but used NRT either in a cessation study or in a study investigating other impacts of NRT.Measurements: We quality‐assessed longitudinal cohort studies using a modified version of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. For meta‐analysis, we used mean within‐person differences in cotinine or nicotine levels when smoking and at later follow‐up when abstinent and using NRT. Where such data were not available, we calculated differences in group mean levels and reported these narratively, indicating where data were not completely longitudinal.Findings: Of the 12 included studies, four cotinine‐measuring studies (n = 83) were combined in a random effects meta‐analysis; the pooled estimate for the mean difference (95% confidence intervals) in cotinine levels between when women were smoking and abstinent but using NRT was 75.3 (57.1 to 93.4) ng/ml (I² = 42.1%, P = 0.11). Of eight narratively‐described studies, six reported lower cotinine and/or nicotine levels when abstinent and using NRT; two had mixed findings, with higher levels when abstinent but using NRT reported from at least one assay time‐point.Conclusions: Pregnant women who use nicotine replacement therapy instead of smoking reduce their nicotine exposure.

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.

Smoking in pregnancy remains a public health problem. In the UK e-cigarettes are the most popular aid to quitting smoking outside of pregnancy, but we don’t know the extent of e-cigarette use in pregnancy or how English Stop Smoking Services (SSS) respond to pregnant women who vape. In 2015 we surveyed SSS managers about cessation support for pregnant women and responses to clients who vaped. Subsequently we interviewed a sub-sample of managers to seek explanations for the SSS’ position on e-cigarettes; interviews were thematically analysed. Survey response rate was 67.8% (72/106); overall managers reported 2.2% (range 1.4–4.3%) of pregnant clients were using e-cigarettes. Most SSS reported supporting pregnant women who already vaped, but would not recommend e-cigarette use; for women that were still smoking and not using e-cigarettes, 8.3% of SSS were likely/very likely to advise using e-cigarettes, with 56.9% of SSS unlikely/very unlikely to advise using them. Fifteen respondents were interviewed; interviewees were generally positive about the potential of e-cigarettes for cessation in pregnancy although concerns about perceived lack of evidence for safety were expressed and most wanted research on this. Clear guidance on e-cigarette use informed by pregnancy specific research will assist SSS to provide consistent evidence-based support.