Premium
Effect of motivational interviewing on smoking cessation in pregnant women
Author(s) -
Karatay Gülnaz,
Kublay Gülümser,
Emiroğlu Oya Nuran
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05267.x
Subject(s) - smoking cessation , motivational interviewing , medicine , psychology , clinical psychology , psychiatry , intervention (counseling) , pathology
karatay g., kublay g. & emiroğlu o.n. (2010) Effect of motivational interviewing on smoking cessation in pregnant women. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66 (6), 1328–1337. Abstract Title. Effect of motivational interviewing on smoking cessation in pregnant women.Aim. This paper is a report of an evaluation of the effects of a motivational interviewing smoking cessation programme on smoking rates of pregnant women. Background. Cigarette smoking during pregnancy is an important public health problem. Smoking cessation programmes provide women with an opportunity to learn how to protect their own health and that of their developing babies. Method. An intervention study was conducted between December 2007 and June 2008. Thirty‐eight pregnant and literate women who were smoking at least one cigarette each day and had not reached their 16th week of pregnancy applied to participate in the research at the prenatal unit of a public hospital. A total of eight home visits was made for each woman with 12‐ to 13‐day intervals between visits; five visits were for intervention, with three follow‐up visits at 1‐month intervals. The intervention content was based on the transtheoretical model. The data were collected using an evaluation form, carbon monoxide level in expired air, cotinine measurements and a Self‐efficacy Scale. Findings. A total of 39·5% of pregnant smokers gave up smoking; a further 44·7% reduced their smoking by 60% from their starting rate. The rate of passive smoking before the intervention (86·8%) decreased to 55·3%. The mean ( sd ) pre‐intervention self‐efficacy score was 61·36 (12·61), and it increased to 93·34 (27·04) after the intervention. Conclusion. The success of this programme shows the need for further development and application of similar programmes by nurses and midwives working in primary health care and antenatal settings.