Cited by 64Smoking Behavior and CessationPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsReproductive Health and Contraception

Randomized trial of a 'stage-of-change' oriented smoking cessation intervention in infertile and pregnant women

Open access
Hughes, Edward G, Lamont, David A, Beecroft, Mary Louise, Wilson, Douglas M.C, Brennan, Barbara G, Rice, Sarah C·2000·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

Objective To assess a "stage-of-change" oriented smoking cessation intervention for infertile and pregnant women, compared with standard of care.Design Randomized controlled trial.Setting Three university teaching hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.Patient(s) Infertile women at their first visit to a tertiary referral infertility clinic (n = 94) and new patients seeking pre-natal care (n = 110) who had smoked >/= 3 cigarettes in the past six months.Intervention(s) A three to five minute scripted intervention and booklet specific to the woman's "stage-of-change" in the smoking continuum, versus standard of care. Exhaled carbon-monoxide (CO) monitoring was used to validate exposure in both groups.Main outcome measure(s) Delta "stage-of-change" and rate of maintained cessation at 12 months post follow-up.Result(s) Intervention and control were similarly effective for infertile women: the rate of maintained cessation rose significantly from 4% to 24% over twelve months, with a mean delta "stage-of-change" 0.28. In prenatal women, neither approach was effective. Maintained cessation did not significantly change from 0 to 12 months (19% to 18%). Mean delta "stage-of-change" declined by -0.62.Conclusion(s) For infertile women, basic information describing the impact of smoking on fertility, along with exhaled CO monitoring and a more intensive intervention were both highly effective. In pregnant women neither approach was beneficial, with some evidence of post-partum relapse.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00687-7

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hughes 2000 reported a mean delta stage of change of 0.31 for the experimental group and 0.26 for the control group.

    “The mean delta stage of change was 0.31 for the experimental group and 0.26 for the control group.”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Hughes 2000

  • In Hughes 2000, the mean delta stage-of-change (difference in stage of motivation to change smoking behaviour) was 0.31 in the experimental group and 0.26 in the control group.

    “Hughes 2000 Delta stage-of-change = difference in stage of motivation to change smoking behaviour (mean) Experimental group (mean): 0.31 (no SD reported) (n = 47) Control group (mean): 0.26 (no SD reported) (n = 47)”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Hughes 2000

  • In Hughes 2000, the rate of maintained cessation rose from 4% to 24% (P < 0.001), with experimental and control groups reported together.

    “Rate of maintained cessation rose from 4% to 24% (P < 0.001)”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Hughes 2000

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Anonymous. Cigarette smoking-attributable mortality and years of po- tential life lost. MMWR 1993;42:645-9.
  2. Hunt W, Bespalec D. An evaluation of current methods of modifying smoking behaviour. J Clin Psychol 1984;30:431-8.
  3. Edwards N, Sims-Jones N, Hotz S. Pre-and postnatal smoking: a review of the literature. Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 1994.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, E. G., Lamont, D. A., Beecroft, M. L., Wilson, D. M. C., Brennan, B. G., & Rice, S. C.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Hughes, Edward G
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-09
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
498-503
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088420635
Cited by
64
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Hamilton Health Sciences
  • Canadian Lung Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
smoking cessation, stages of change, infertility, pregnancy, postpartum relapse
MeSH terms
Adult, Breath Tests, Carbon Monoxide, Female, Humans, Infertility, Female, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Smoking Cessation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review