Aims: Increased nicotine metabolism during pregnancy could explain why nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) appears to be less effective on smoking cessation in pregnancy than in non‐pregnant smokers, but little is known about nicotine metabolism across pregnancy. This study was conducted to determine when changes in nicotine metabolism occur during pregnancy and to describe the magnitude of these changes.Design: Longitudinal cohort study of pregnant smokers' nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR).Setting and Participants: 101 pregnant smokers recruited from hospital antenatal clinics in Nottingham, UK were asked to provide saliva samples at 8–14 weeks (n = 98), 18–22 weeks (n = 65), 32–36 weeks gestation (n = 47), 4 weeks postpartum (n = 44) and 12 weeks postpartum (n = 47).Measurements: Nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR) was measured using the ratio of cotinine to its primary metabolite trans‐3'‐hydroxycotinine. Multi‐level modelling was used to detect any overall difference in NMR between time points. The 12 week postpartum NMR was compared with the NMRs collected antenatally and 4 weeks postpartum.Findings: NMR changed over time (p = 0.0006). Compared with NMR at 12 weeks postpartum, NMR was significantly higher at 18–22 weeks (26% higher, 95% CI 12% to 38%) and 32–36 weeks (23% higher, 95% CI 9% to 35%). There was no significant difference between the 8‐14 weeks gestation or 4 weeks postpartum NMR and 12 weeks postpartum.Conclusions: Nicotine metabolism appears to be faster during pregnancy; this faster metabolism is apparent from 18 to 22 weeks of pregnancy and appears to fall by 4 weeks after childbirth.

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are increasingly used for reducing or stopping smoking, with some studies showing positive outcomes. However, little is known about views on ECs during pregnancy or postpartum and previous studies have nearly all been conducted in the US and have methodological limitations, such as not distinguishing between smokers and ex/non-smokers. A greater understanding of this topic will help to inform both clinicians and EC interventions. We elicited views and experiences of ECs among UK pregnant or recently pregnant women. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews, using topic guides, with pregnant or recently pregnant women, who were current or recent ex-smokers. To ensure broad views of ECs were obtained, recruitment was from several geographical locations and via various avenues of recruitment. This included stop smoking services, antenatal and health visitor clinics, a pregnancy website and an informal network. Participants were 15 pregnant and 15 postpartum women, including nine current EC users, 11 ex-users, and 10 never-users. Five women who were interviewed in pregnancy were later interviewed in postpartum to explore if their views had changed. Audio data was transcribed verbatim and framework analysis was applied. Five main themes emerged: motivations for use (e.g., for stopping or reducing smoking), social stigma (e.g., avoiding use in public, preferring ‘discrete’ NRT), using the EC (e.g., mostly used at home); consumer aspects (e.g., limited advice available), and harm perceptions (e.g., viewed as less harmful than smoking; concerns about safety and addiction). ECs were viewed positively by some pregnant and postpartum women and seen as less harmful than smoking and useful as aids for reducing and stopping smoking. However, due to perceived social stigma, some women feel uncomfortable using ECs in public, especially during pregnancy, and had concerns about safety and nicotine dependence. Health professionals and designers of EC interventions need to provide women with up-to-date and consistent information and advice about safety and dependence, as well as considering the influence of social stigma.

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.

Pregnant smokers may be offered nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) alongside behavioral support to assist with a quit attempt. Yet trials of NRT have found adherence to be low among pregnant women, and this has made it difficult to determine the efficacy of NRT. The aim of this study is to understand the experience of pregnant women who use NRT but discontinue this early or do not use the medication as recommended. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 14 pregnant smokers who had recently been prescribed NRT, but self-reported poor NRT adherence or discontinuing treatment prematurely. Data were transcribed and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis There were four main themes identified; expectations of NRT, experience of using NRT, safety concerns and experience of using e-cigarettes. Some women intentionally used NRT to substitute a proportion of their cigarette intake and smoked alongside. Most women smoked while using NRT. Women who underutilized NRT did so as they experienced side effects, or were concerned that using NRT instead of smoking could actually increase their nicotine exposure and potential for increased nicotine dependence or fetal harm. Most women spoke about the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation method but only a few had actually experienced using them during pregnancy. Many women underused NRT but simultaneously smoked. Challenging negative perceptions about NRT and educating women further about the risks of smoking may encourage them to use NRT products as recommended. These findings add to the research surrounding the efficacy of NRT during pregnancy by providing insight into how pregnant women use NRT during a quit attempt and how this may influence adherence. It may assist health professionals to support pregnant smokers by increasing their understanding about the differing ways in which women use NRT and help them address concerns women may have about the safety of NRT.

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.