4.4 Article

Improving implementation of the smoking cessation guidelines with pregnant women: How to support clinicians?

期刊

MIDWIFERY
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 137-144

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.12.016

关键词

Australia; Health promotion; Midwifery; Prenatal care; Smoking cessation

类别

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Fellowship [GNT1072213]
  2. New South Wales Cancer Institute Fellowship [13/ECF/1-11]
  3. Sydney Medical School Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: this study aimed to explore the enablers and barriers to implementation of the Australian smoking cessation in pregnancy guidelines. These guidelines direct clinicians to follow the 5As of cessation: Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist and Arrange follow-up. Design: semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) elicited clinicians' views and experiences of implementing the guidelines. Setting: antenatal care in the NSW public health system. Participants: 27 maternity service managers, obstetricians and midwives. Findings: participants confirmed that implementation of the smoking cessation guidelines was sub-optimal. This was particularly the case with Assist and Arrange follow up at the initial visit, and with following any of the 5As at subsequent visits. Key barriers included systems which did not support implementation or monitoring, lack of knowledge, skills and training, perceived time restrictions, 'difficult conversations' and perceiving smoking as a social activity. Enablers included clinicians' knowledge of the harms of smoking in pregnancy, clinicians' skills in communicating with pregnant women, positive emotions, professional role and identity, the potential of training and of champions to influence practice, and systems that regulated behaviour. Key conclusions: these findings will contribute to the development of a multifaceted intervention to support clinicians in implementing the guidelines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据