PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Am J Prev Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 March 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2711691
NIHMSID: NIHMS97002

Environmental Tobacco Smoke Avoidance Among Pregnant African-American Nonsmokers

Abstract

Background

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure during pregnancy contributes to adverse infant health outcomes. Limited previous research has focused on identifying correlates of ETS avoidance. This study sought to identify proximal and more distal correlates of ETS avoidance early in pregnancy among African-American women.

Methods

From a sample of low-income, black women (n=1044) recruited in six urban, prenatal care clinics (July 2001–October 2003), cotinine-confirmed nonsmokers with partners, household/family members, or friends who smoked (n=450) were identified and divided into two groups: any past-7-day ETS exposure and cotinine-confirmed ETS avoidance. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with ETS avoidance. Data were initially analyzed in 2004. Final models were reviewed and revised in 2007 and 2008.

Results

Twenty-seven percent of pregnant nonsmokers were confirmed as ETS avoiders. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the odds of ETS avoidance were increased among women who reported household smoking bans (OR=2.96; 95% CI=1.83, 4.77; p<0.0001), that the father wanted the baby (OR=2.70; CI=1.26, 5.76; p=0.01), and that no/few family members/friends smoked (OR=3.15; 95% CI=1.58, 6.29; p<0.001). The odds were decreased among women who had a current partner (OR= 0.42; 95% CI=0.23, 0.76; p<0.01), reported any intimate partner violence during pregnancy (OR= 0.43; 95% CI=0.19, 0.95; p<0.05), and reported little social support to prevent ETS exposure (OR= 0.50; 95% CI=0.30, 0.85; p=0.01). Parity, emotional coping strategies, substance use during pregnancy, partner/household member smoking status, and self-confidence in avoiding ETS were significant in bivariate, but not multivariate analyses.

Conclusions

Social contextual factors were the strongest determinants of ETS avoidance during pregnancy. Results highlight the importance of prenatal screening to identify pregnant nonsmokers at risk, encouraging household smoking bans, gaining support from significant others, and fully understanding the interpersonal context of a woman’s pregnancy before providing behavioral counseling and advice to prevent ETS exposure.

Introduction

Adverse effects of tobacco smoke exposure during pregnancy are dose-dependent for active1 and passive smoking.2,3 Adverse events associated with smoking include intrauterine growth retardation, small-for-gestational-age, preterm birth, stillbirth, spontaneous abortion, placenta previa, abruptio placenta, and bleeding.4-6 Low birthweight, intrauterine growth, preterm birth,2,6,7 vaginal bleeding,8 and fetal death2 have been associated with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure. Nonwhites experience more adverse effects, particularly low birth weight and prematurity, than do whites from smoking9-12 and ETS exposure.6 African-American nonsmokers13,14 and smokers,15 irrespective of pregnancy, have consistently higher cotinine levels than whites or Hispanics, despite comparable ETS exposure levels or numbers of cigarettes smoked15; metabolize cotinine more slowly16-18; have a longer cotinine half-life19; and are more likely to smoke mentholated cigarettes,16,20,21 which increases cotinine and carbon monoxide levels,22 increases cotinine half-life,19 and influences nicotine metabolism and clearance.23

Little is known about the prevalence or correlates of ETS exposure among pregnant nonsmokers. It has been reported that 21% of nonsmokers with singleton pregnancies had ETS exposure during pregnancy.7 In another study, 24 28% of nonsmokers receiving prenatal care reported ETS exposure either at home or at work. In the Yale Pregnancy Outcome Study, 52% of nonsmokers had detectable levels of urinary cotinine.25 Among low-income pregnant women in Minnesota, 12% of nonsmokers reported daily ETS exposure of less than 4 hours.26

Correlates of ETS exposure among pregnant nonsmokers include being single27; being black27; having a lower education level and decreased knowledge of ETS exposure risks27-29; lower self-efficacy29; a husband, partner, or household member(s) who smokes27,28,30; and no household smoking bans.29 None of these studies focused specifically on African-American women who are clearly at increased risk, and although these ETS exposure–specific factors are important targets for behavioral counseling interventions, there may be other psychosocial or social contextual factors31-32 that influence a woman’s ability to limit ETS exposure during pregnancy.

This study examines correlates of ETS avoidance in a population of African-American pregnant women. The hypothesis was that proximal variables to ETS exposure, such as identified household smokers, the presence of household smoking bans, confidence in preventing ETS exposure, perceived harm to exposed infants, and support for reducing exposure would be most predictive. An attempt was also made in this study to identify other, more distal correlates (e.g., individual, social, and contextual factors) that may be useful to consider in designing interventions intended to promote ETS avoidance.

Methods

Research Design and Procedures

Data are cross-sectional and were collected during the baseline assessment of a randomized, multiple–risk behavior intervention trial33,34 that addressed four risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes: cigarette smoking, ETS exposure, depression,35 and intimate partner violence (IPV).36 Participating IRBs that approved this study include Howard University, RTI International, and National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. All other participating institution IRBs relied on Howard University as the IRB of record.

Women, recruited from six prenatal care clinics (July 2001–October 2003), completed a 10-minute audio–computer assisted self-interview (A-CASI) to determine eligibility. Adapted Smoke-Free Families (SFF) screening items37 identified smokers and nonsmokers. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)–FastScreen for Medical Patients identified past-month depression symptoms,38 and the Abuse Assessment Screen39 identified past-year IPV. Inclusion criteria were: pregnant, ≤28 weeks gestation, aged ≥18 years, Washington DC resident, self-identification as African American/black or Latina, English-speaking, not suicidal or incarcerated, and reporting one or more designated risk factors. Additional recruitment/screening procedures are described elsewhere.40

Eligible women were invited to participate. Consenting women completed a baseline telephone interview within 1 month of screening (M=9.3 +/−8.2 days; median/mode=7 days). Women were randomized by site after the baseline interview. Saliva samples were collected for cotinine analysis at enrollment or at the next scheduled prenatal care visit.

Participants

Of 1398 eligible women, 85% consented: 1070 completed the baseline interview. Latina women (n=22) who were enrolled in the larger study were excluded from this analysis. Respondents who self-identified as African American or black (n=1048) and answered relevant baseline questions (n=1011) were included in this analysis. Women who smoked cigarettes within 6 months of becoming pregnant or since (n=353; 35%); did not have a partner/spouse, household member, or any family/friends whom they saw regularly who smoked cigarettes (n=75; 7%); or did not have baseline cotinine values to confirm self-reports (n=92; 9%) were further excluded in order to assess correlates of ETS avoidance among nonsmokers at risk. Data from 491 women (49%) are therefore presented below.

Measures

Personal and interpersonal factors

Demographic characteristics included maternal age, education, marital status, employment, school enrollment, household income, and receipt of Medicaid or other financial assistance. Reproductive history items included gestational age, number of pregnancies, and number of living children. Happiness about being pregnant, pregnancy ambivalence, and other attitudes toward pregnancy were assessed using Pregnancy Risk Monitoring Assessment System and National Survey of Family Growth41,42 items. Eight items were combined to create a positive attitudes scale (range=8–80; Cronbach’s alpha coefficient=0.70).

Mental health–related items included past-month depression symptoms from the 20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist–Depression Scale,43 cognitive–behavioral coping strategies from a 15-item version of the Negative Mood Regulation Scale,44,45 and alcohol or illicit drug use during pregnancy. Interpersonal factors included having a current partner, the father’s desire to have the baby, past-year IPV (as measured by the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale physical assault and sexual coercion subscales),46 IPV during pregnancy, and perceived emotional support from others and the current partner using the 11-item Support Behaviors Inventory47,48 (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient=0.9; range=11–66).

Environmental tobacco smoke exposure–specific factors

Items were adapted from the SFF,37 National Health Interview Survey supplements,49 and ETS exposure intervention studies.50 Women reported whether their partner, household members, or family/friends smoked. They estimated household exposure for the past 7 days and personal ETS exposure on a typical day at or away from home. Household smoking bans, those who typically smoked at home, self-confidence in preventing ETS exposure, perceived support from significant others, and harmfulness of ETS exposure to the baby’s health were assessed. Cotinine level, which is the major proximate metabolite of nicotine and has been widely used as a biomarker of tobacco exposure,51 was determined using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC/MS) with lower detection limits of 10 ng/ml.

Analysis

Data were initially analyzed in 2004. Final models were reviewed and revised in 2007 and 2008. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves52,53 identified cotinine cutoff points that maximized sensitivity/specificity for detection of smoking and ETS exposure. Women whose values exceeded the active smoking cutoff point of 17 ng/ml (86.9% sensitivity, 88.2% specificity, and 175.1 sensitivity + specificity) were considered smokers and were excluded from further analyses. Women who reported no past-7-day ETS exposure but whose values exceeded the passive smoking cutoff of 10 ng/ml (giving 18.3% sensitivity, 90.5% specificity, and 108.9 sensitivity + specificity) were classified as having ETS exposure, as were women self-reporting any past-7-day ETS exposure. Women reporting no ETS exposure with cotinine levels of 10 ng/ml were classified as ETS avoiders.

Environmental tobacco smoke avoidance correlates were identified in several stages. Bivariate comparisons were performed using chi-square tests and t-tests. Spearman correlation coefficients (r) were examined, and highly correlated variables were removed to reduce multicollinearity. Variables significant at p≤0.20 in bivariate comparisons were included in two initial multivariate logistic regression models to separately examine effects of “personal/interpersonal” and “ETS exposure–specific” variables. Variables significant in initial models at p≤0.20 were then included in a full regression model. Predictive abilities were examined using the maximum rescaled R-square (R2),54 which determines the absolute percentage of variation explained, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC or c-statistic). The higher these values, the higher the discriminant power.55

Results

Reclassification Results and ROC Curve Analysis

Of self-reported nonsmokers, 8% had cotinine values exceeding the active smoking cutoff (hereafter excluded), 0.4% exceeded the passive smoking cutoff and were reclassified as having ETS exposure, 66% reported ETS exposure, and 25% were confirmed avoiders of ETS. Of the remaining 450 nonsmokers, 73% (n=327) had ETS exposure, and 27% (n=123) were avoiders of ETS.

Respondent Characteristics

Average maternal age was 25 years, with a gestational age of 19 weeks. Most had less than or equal to a high school education (78%) and received some form of federally funded financial assistance (84%): 69% reported household incomes <$2000 per month; 42% were employed; 22% were enrolled in school. Most had a current partner (83%) and were single (73%); 23% lived with their partner/spouse. Psychosocial and behavioral risks included moderate-to-severe depression symptoms (13%), and any IPV (14%), alcohol (14%), or illicit drug use (5%) during pregnancy. Nearly all had a family member/friend (96%) who smoked, but less than half reported a household member (46%) or partner (43%) who smoked.

Bivariate Comparisons

Demographic characteristics were similar among groups (Table 1). A categoric version of maternal age was marginally significant, suggesting that those who avoided ETS were more likely to be aged >30 years (18% vs 10%; p<0.10). Fewer women who avoided ETS than those with ETS exposure reported a previous pregnancy. Other reproductive history and attitude variables were comparable, as were depression and alcohol-use levels. Women who avoided ETS used cognitive–behavioral coping strategies more often to handle negative affect. They were less likely to report illicit substance use during pregnancy, to have a current partner, and to report any IPV during pregnancy or the past year, and they were more likely to report that the father wanted the baby.

Table 1
Bivariate comparisons of those exposed to ETS versus avoiders of ETS: personal and interpersonal factorsa

Nearly all ETS exposure–specific variable comparisons were significant (Table 2). Fewer women who avoided ETS than those exposed to ETS reported that their partner or “most” family members/friends smoked. Women who avoided ETS exposure reported fewer household smokers, fewer cigarettes smoked by partners per day, and less past-7-day household ETS exposure. More women who avoided ETS than those exposed to ETS had a household smoking ban, felt confident they could stop others from smoking around them, and perceived that family/friends would be supportive if asked not to smoke. No differences in perceived harm to the baby from ETS exposure were found.

Table 2
Bivariate comparisons of those exposed to ETS and ETS avoiders: ETS exposure–specific variablesa

Multivariate Models

Initial models

Four of eight variables included in the initial model of personal/interpersonal factors were significant (Table 3). The model was marginally predictive of ETS avoidance (max-rescaled R2=0.08; AUC or c-statistic=0.65). Odds of ETS avoidance were decreased among women reporting prior pregnancies, a current partner, or any IPV during the pregnancy; they were increased among those reporting that the father wanted the baby. Variables significant in Table 1, but excluded from this model, were any illicit drug use (because of small numbers of ETS avoiders) and past-year frequency of sexual coercion (so that the effects of overall IPV during pregnancy could be assessed). Correlations with IPV during pregnancy were: r=0.38; p<0.001.

Table 3
Multivariate models predicting ETS avoidance

Three of six variables in the initial model of ETS exposure–specific factors were significantly associated with ETS avoidance (Table 3). The model was acceptable (max-rescaled R2=0.21; AUC or c-statistic=0.75). Odds of ETS avoidance were higher among women with household smoking bans and fewer smoking friends/family members; they were lower among women perceiving less support for ETS exposure prevention. Having a partner or household member who smoked did not contribute to the initial model, potentially because of correlations with other variables, most notably between having any household smokers and a smoking ban (r=0.44; p<0.001).

Variables significant in Table 2, but excluded from this initial model, were the number of cigarettes smoked daily by partners and the number of household smokers, because correlations with having a partner or household member who smoked (which were retained) respectively exceeded r=0.90. Model results were comparable, replacing any household smokers with the number/percentage of household smokers, and replacing a partner who smoked with the number of cigarettes the partner smoked; none of these alternate variables were significant in the initial model. Numbers of past-week household cigarettes smoked were similarly excluded because of strong correlations with household bans (r=0.77; p<0.001). Model results were equally significant, replacing the household smoking ban variable with numbers of cigarettes smoked at home.

Final model

Five variables in the initial model of personal/interpersonal factors, and four from the initial model of ETS exposure–specific factors, were significant at p≤0.20 and were retained in the final model predicting ETS avoidance (Table 3). The final model was significant (max-rescaled R2=0.26; AUC or c-statistic=0.77); its predictive power increased slightly over the initial ETS exposure–specific model that excluded personal/interpersonal factors.

Six variables were significantly associated with ETS avoidance in the final model; all were related to social context. The odds of ETS avoidance were nearly threefold higher among women who had household smoking bans, reported that no/few (versus most) friends/family members smoked, and perceived that the father wanted the baby; the odds of ETS avoidance were lower among women who had a current partner, reported any IPV during pregnancy, and had less social support to prevent ETS exposure.

Discussion

This study demonstrates the importance of examining contextual as well as individual characteristics in order to better determine correlates of ETS avoidance. Behavioral, psychosocial, and social contextual factors may overlap and interfere with health behavior change during pregnancy.56,57 Behavior change efforts focused on only a single risk may be unsuccessful because other risk factors serve as barriers to the desired change.58,59 Using an integrative approach may serve to improve behavioral counseling in healthcare settings.60-62 Evidence presented in this study highlights the importance of addressing interactions between personal, interpersonal, and ETS exposure–specific factors concomitantly. This study replicated previous ETS exposure–specific correlates reported in the literature but also identified several important new factors predicting ETS avoidance during pregnancy that warrant consideration in prenatal care interventions to reduce ETS exposure.

Unique to this study were social contextual factors reflecting the quality of intimate partner relationships. The fact that women without a current partner were more likely to avoid ETS exposure makes intuitive sense; the opportunity for exposure is by definition reduced with one less potential smoker in the social environment. It is also easy to imagine that pregnant women with a child not wanted by the father, or who fear retaliation/IPV, may be very reticent to request that the father not smoke around them. Conversely, partners who want the baby and are not prone to IPV would be expected to be more protective and less likely to smoke around a pregnant woman.

Literature supports this suggestion, but no studies specifically address ETS exposure and these variables. Pregnancy intentions and feelings have been strongly associated with psychosocial and behavioral risks,63-67 including ETS exposure,64 and are influenced by perceptions of the father’s desire to have a baby.64,66,68,69 Maternal health behaviors improve when fathers are involved.70 Men who want to become fathers are more supportive of their partner’s health.71 Similarly, IPV has been associated with increased behavioral risks, including substance use and smoking,72 but not with ETS exposure. Relationship power imbalances,73 and other IPV correlates including learned helplessness or fear of being hurt,74 could influence a woman’s reluctance to prevent ETS exposure, even when such exposures are recognized as harmful. Combined, these findings highlight the need to consider the role that relationship quality, and IPV in particular, may play in affecting a woman’s ability to be assertive about ETS exposure prevention during pregnancy or to establish household smoking bans. Results additionally suggest the need to approach such discussions sensitively and with caution to ensure that women remain safe.

Our results agree with other studies showing that one of the strongest predictors of ETS avoidance is having established a household smoking ban, a factor that has protected adults, children, and infants against ETS exposure.75-78 (The number of cigarettes smoked in the home was equally predictive when tested in a separate multivariate model that excluded the household smoking ban variable.) Bans are reported more often in homes with children79,80 and without smokers.76,77,80 Only one previous study of pregnant women found a similar protective effect.29 Two others demonstrated that in the absence of household bans, expectant fathers continue to smoke,81 and that establishing bans early in pregnancy helps prevent infant ETS exposure postpartum.82

Unfortunately, fewer nonsmokers in this study had household bans than has been reported elsewhere among pregnant/postpartum women,82 low-income minority families irrespective of pregnancy,83 or in households with smokers.79 One possible explanation could be that in this study, younger women (mean age=25 years) were often not the head of household but lived with a parent/grandparent, potentially making it more difficult to establish household bans. Another explanation could be that IPV compromised some women’s ability to make decisions and implement strategies autonomously within their household environment. Additionally, perceived support from others, which has been previously associated with adopting smoking bans to protect infants from ETS exposure82 and with smoking cessation during pregnancy,84,85 but not with ETS exposure during pregnancy, could have played a role. In this study, women who reported that fewer significant others smoked and who perceived greater support in remaining smoke-free were more likely to avoid ETS exposure; however, perceptions of support were lacking in almost half of the population.

Several other findings differed from those in the literature. Demographic characteristics, other than maternal age, were not associated with ETS avoidance, most likely because this was a comparatively homogeneous sample of pregnant, black nonsmokers at high risk. Perceived harmfulness of ETS exposure during pregnancy was low and found to be unrelated to ETS avoidance, whereas in other studies, knowledge of ETS risks was found to be protective.27-29 The lack of an independent association between ETS avoidance and self-confidence in preventing ETS exposure was surprising because it was predictive in one study29 and has been a strong determinant of cessation during pregnancy85-88 and of ETS exposure prevention among infants/children.82,89 Having a partner/household member who smoked had a significant effect on ETS exposure in previous studies,27,28,30 but not in this study. The number of cigarettes partners smoked or the number of household smokers also did not have an effect in this study, potentially because of selection criteria; women in this study were required to have significant others who smoked to be included in the analysis, whereas in other studies all pregnant women were included. Instead, where people smoked was a stronger ETS exposure determinant than whether or how much partners/household members smoked. Further research is needed to better understand discrepancies between this finding and previous study findings.

Study strengths include the focus on identifying correlates of ETS avoidance among pregnant nonsmokers at risk, biomarker verification of self-reports, and identification of several important social contextual factors to consider in preventing ETS exposure during pregnancy. Methods and measures paralleled previous studies examining correlates of smoking cessation during pregnancy and expand on the relatively few studies that focus on ETS exposure.

Of the limitations, the most important relates to the lower detection limits for biomarker validation. Budgetary constraints limited more-sensitive biomarker analysis (e.g., ≤1.0 ng/ml),90 which may have resulted in more ETS avoiders having been reclassified as being exposed to ETS, making the results different. By restricting the upper limit for passive smoke exposure to a salivary cotinine value of 17 ng/ml, some women with high-level exposure may also have been eliminated. Findings were cross-sectional, leaving it unclear whether those classified as avoiders of ETS or being exposed to ETS would remain so classified across the prenatal interval. Study generalizability is limited to lower-income, urban, black women at increased risk who seek prenatal care before 28 weeks gestation. Because these women were enrolled in a larger study based on the presence of selected risk factors, including ETS exposure, these findings are not easily compared to other studies.

Conclusion

Results highlight the importance of comprehensive prenatal screening to identify a woman’s psychosocial and behavioral risks. Before addressing ETS exposure, it is important to gain a complete understanding of the social context of a woman’s pregnancy. While providing behavioral counseling and skills-based interventions, it is important to consider other factors that could exacerbate risks for IPV and poor pregnancy outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This study was part of the NIH–DC Initiative, a congressionally mandated project to reduce infant morbidity/mortality in minority populations in the District of Columbia. Collaborating institutions included: Children’s National Medical Center, The George Washington University Medical Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Howard University Hospital, and RTI International. The research on which this article was based was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities under cooperative agreement grant #s 3U18HD030445, 3U18HD030447, 5U18HD31206, 3U18HD03919, and 5U18HD036104.

The conclusions and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders. The authors wish to thank Dr. Richard Windsor, who provided comments on final manuscript drafts, the research assistants who collected the data, and Drissa Toure for assistance with the literature review, references, and tables. We are indebted to the women who participated in this study and to the prenatal care clinic staff for their sustained support of this project.

Footnotes

No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

1. Secker-Walker RH, Vacek PM, Flynn BS, Mead PB. Estimated gains in birth weight associated with reductions in smoking during pregnancy. J Reprod Med. 1998;43(11):967–74. [PubMed]
2. Kharrazi M, DeLorenze GN, Kaufman FL, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and pregnancy outcome. Epidemiology. 2004;15(6):660–70. [PubMed]
3. Windham GC, Eaton A, Hopkins B. Evidence for an association between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and birthweight: a meta-analysis and new data. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1999;13(1):35–57. [PubMed]
4. Cnattingius S. The epidemiology of smoking during pregnancy: smoking prevalence, maternal characteristics, and pregnancy outcomes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(2S):S125–40. [PubMed]
5. USDHHS. The health consequences of smoking: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta GA: USDHHS, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2004.
6. Windham GC, Hopkins B, Fenster L, Swan SH. Prenatal active or passive tobacco smoke exposure and the risk of preterm delivery or low birth weight. Epidemiology. 2000;11(4):427–33. [PubMed]
7. Ahluwalia IB, Grummer-Strawn L, Scanlon KS. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and birth outcome: increased effects on pregnant women aged 30 years or older. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146(1):42–7. [PubMed]
8. Yang J, Savitz DA, Dole N, et al. Predictors of vaginal bleeding during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2005;19(4):276–83. [PubMed]
9. Alexander GR, Kogan M, Bader D, Carlo W, Allen M, Mor J. U.S. birth weight/gestational age-specific neonatal mortality: 1995–1997 rates for whites, Hispanics, and blacks. Pediatrics. 2003;111(1):e61–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. CDC. MMWR. 22. Vol. 54. 2005. Racial/ethnic disparities in infant mortality—United States, 1995–2002; pp. 553–6. [PubMed]
11. Reagan PB, Salsberry PJ. Race and ethnic differences in determinants of preterm birth in the USA: broadening the social context. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(10):2217–28. [PubMed]
12. Schempf AH, Branum AM, Lukacs SL, Schoendorf KC. The contribution of preterm birth to the black-white infant mortality gap, 1990 and 2000. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(7):1255–60. [PubMed]
13. Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, Brody DJ, Etzel RA, Maurer KR. Exposure of the U.S. population to environmental tobacco smoke: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. JAMA. 1996;275(16):1233–40. [PubMed]
14. Pirkle JL, Bernert JT, Caudill SP, Sosnoff CS, Pechacek TF. Trends in the exposure of nonsmokers in the U.S. population to secondhand smoke: 1988–2002. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(6):853–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Caraballo RS, Giovino GA, Pechacek TF, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in serum cotinine levels of cigarette smokers: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991. JAMA. 1998;280(2):135–9. [PubMed]
16. Ahijevych K. Nicotine metabolism variability and nicotine addiction. Nicotine Tob Res. 1999;1(2S):S59–62. [PubMed]
17. Benowitz NL, Perez-Stable EJ, Fong I, Modin G, Herrera B, Jacob P., 3rd Ethnic differences in N-glucuronidation of nicotine and cotinine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;291(3):1196–203. [PubMed]
18. Moolchan ET, Franken FH, Jaszyna-Gasior M. Adolescent nicotine metabolism: ethnoracial differences among dependent smokers. Ethn Dis. 2006;16(1):239–43. [PubMed]
19. Ahijevych KL, Tyndale RF, Dhatt RK, Weed HG, Browning KK. Factors influencing cotinine half-life during smoking abstinence in African American and Caucasian women. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;4(4):423–31. [PubMed]
20. Royce JM, Hymowitz N, Corbett K, Hartwell TD, Orlandi MA. Smoking cessation factors among African Americans and whites. COMMIT Research Group. Am J Public Health. 1993;83(2):220–6. [PubMed]
21. Savitz DA, Dole N, Terry JW, Jr, Zhou H, Thorp JM., Jr Smoking and pregnancy outcome among African-American and white women in central North Carolina. Epidemiology. 2001;12(6):636–42. [PubMed]
22. Clark PI, Gautam S, Gerson LW. Effect of menthol cigarettes on biochemical markers of smoke exposure among black and white smokers. Chest. 1996;110(5):1194–8. [PubMed]
23. Benowitz NL, Herrera B, Jacob P., 3rd Mentholated cigarette smoking inhibits nicotine metabolism. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2004;310(3):1208–15. [PubMed]
24. Windham GC, Von Behren J, Waller K, Fenster L. Exposure to environmental and mainstream tobacco smoke and risk of spontaneous abortion. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(3):243–7. [PubMed]
25. O’Connor TZ, Holford TR, Leaderer BP, Hammond SK, Bracken MB. Measurement of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in pregnant women. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142(12):1315–21. [PubMed]
26. Dunn CL, Pirie PL, Hellerstedt WL. Self exposure to secondhand smoke among prenatal smokers, abstainers, and nonsmokers. Am J Health Promot. 2004;18(4):296–9. [PubMed]
27. DeLorenze GN, Kharrazi M, Kaufman FL, Eskenazi B, Bernert JT. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in pregnant women: the association between self-report and serum cotinine. Environ Res. 2002;90(1):21–32. [PubMed]
28. Loke AY, Lam TH, Pan SC, Li SY, Gao XJ, Song YY. Exposure to and actions against passive smoking in non-smoking pregnant women in Guangzhou China. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(11):947–52. [PubMed]
29. Chen CM, Lee PH, Chou YH, Kuo SF, Hsu YH. Avoidance of environmental tobacco smoke among pregnant Taiwanese women: knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavior. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2007;16(6):869–78. [PubMed]
30. Kaufman FL, Kharrazi M, Delorenze GN, Eskenazi B, Bernert JT. Estimation of environmental tobacco smoke exposure during pregnancy using a single question on household smokers versus serum cotinine. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2002;12(4):286–95. [PubMed]
31. Fisher EB. The importance of context in understanding behavior and promoting health. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(1):3–18. [PubMed]
32. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351–77. [PubMed]
33. El-Mohandes AA, Kiely M, Joseph JG, et al. An intervention to improve postpartum outcomes in African-American mothers: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(3):611–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Katz KS, Blake SM, Milligan RA, et al. The design, implementation and acceptability of an integrated intervention to address multiple behavioral and psychosocial risk factors among pregnant African American women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008;8(1):22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
35. Orr ST, James SA, Blackmore Prince C. Maternal prenatal depressive symptoms and spontaneous preterm births among African-American women in Baltimore Maryland. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156(9):797–802. [PubMed]
36. Silverman JG, Decker MR, Reed E, Raj A. Intimate partner violence victimization prior to and during pregnancy among women residing in 26 U.S. states: associations with maternal and neonatal health. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(1):140–8. [PubMed]
37. Melvin CL, Tucker P. Measurement and definition for smoking cessation intervention research: the smoke-free families experience. Smoke-Free Families Common Evaluation Measures for Pregnancy and Smoking Cessation Projects Working Group. Tob Control. 2000;9(3S):III87–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. BDI-FastScreen for medical patients. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Assessment, Inc; 2000.
39. McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K, Bullock L. Assessing for abuse during pregnancy. Severity and frequency of injuries and associated entry into prenatal care. JAMA. 1992;267(23):3176–8. [PubMed]
40. El-Khorazaty MN, Johnson AA, Kiely M, et al. Recruitment and retention of low-income minority women in a behavioral intervention to reduce smoking, depression, and intimate partner violence during pregnancy. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:233. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Peterson LS, Mosher WD. Options for measuring unintended pregnancy in cycle 6 of the National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31(5):252–3. [PubMed]
42. Colley Gilbert BJ, Johnson CH, Morrow B, Gaffield ME, Ahluwalia I. Prevalence of selected maternal and infant characteristics, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 1997. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ. 1999;48(5):1–37. [PubMed]
43. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci. 1974;19(1):1–15. [PubMed]
44. Catanzaro SJ. Mood regulation expectancies, anxiety sensitivity, and emotional distress. J Abnorm Psychol. 1993;102(2):327–30. [PubMed]
45. Mearns J. Coping with a breakup: negative mood regulation expectancies and depression following the end of a romantic relationship. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60(2):327–34. [PubMed]
46. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. J Fam Issues. 1996;17(3):283–316.
47. Brown MA. Marital support during pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1986a;15(6):475–83. [PubMed]
48. Brown MA. Social support during pregnancy: a unidimensional or multidimensional construct? Nurs Res. 1986b;35(1):4–9. [PubMed]
49. National Center for Health Statistics. 1990 National Health Interview Survey of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Pregnancy and smoking file: tape documentation. 1991. 2001. http://wonder.cdc.gov.
50. Hovell MF, Zakarian JM, Matt GE, Hofstetter CR, Bernert JT, Pirkle J. Effect of counselling mothers on their children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: randomised controlled trial. Bmj. 2000;321(7257):337–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
51. Benowitz NL. Biomarkers of environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107(2S):349–55. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
52. Hanley JA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 1989;29(3):307–35. [PubMed]
53. McNeil BJ, Hanley JA. Statistical approaches to the analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Med Decis Making. 1984;4(2):137–50. [PubMed]
54. Nagelkerke NJD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika. 1991;78:691–2.
55. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.
56. Solomon L, Quinn V. Spontaneous quitting: self-initiated smoking cessation in early pregnancy. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(2S):S203–16. [PubMed]
57. Vander Weg MW, Ward KD, Scarinci IC, Read MC, Evans CB. Smoking-related correlates of depressive symptoms in low-income pregnant women. Am J Health Behav. 2004;28(6):510–21. [PubMed]
58. Nigg CR, Allegrante JP, Ory M. Theory-comparison and multiple-behavior research: common themes advancing health behavior research. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(5):670–9. [PubMed]
59. Ory MG, Jordan PJ, Bazzarre T. The behavior change consortium: setting the stage for a new century of health behavior-change research. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(5):500–11. [PubMed]
60. Goldstein MG, Whitlock EP, DePue J. Multiple behavioral risk factor interventions in primary care. Summary of research evidence. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(2S):61–79. [PubMed]
61. Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN, Taylor WC, Goodrick GK, Moye L. Simultaneous vs sequential counseling for multiple behavior change. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(11):1152–8. [PubMed]
62. Whitlock EP, Orleans CT, Pender N, Allan J. Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions: an evidence-based approach. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(4):267–84. [PubMed]
63. Hellerstedt WL, Pirie PL, Lando HA, et al. Differences in preconceptional and prenatal behaviors in women with intended and unintended pregnancies. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(4):663–6. [PubMed]
64. Blake SM, Kiely M, Gard CC, El-Mohandes AA, El-Khorazaty MN. Pregnancy intentions and happiness among pregnant black women at high risk for adverse infant health outcomes. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2007;39(4):194–205. [PubMed]
65. Leathers SJ, Kelley MA. Unintended pregnancy and depressive symptoms among first-time mothers and fathers. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2000;70(4):523–31. [PubMed]
66. D’Angelo DV, Gilbert BC, Rochat RW, Santelli JS, Herold JM. Differences between mistimed and unwanted pregnancies among women who have live births. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2004;36(5):192–7. [PubMed]
67. Pallitto CC, Campbell JC, O’Campo P. Is intimate partner violence associated with unintended pregnancy? A review of the literature. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2005;6(3):217–35. [PubMed]
68. Davies SL, DiClemente RJ, Wingood GM, Harrington KF, Crosby RA, Sionean C. Pregnancy desire among disadvantaged African American adolescent females. Am J Health Behav. 2003;27(1):55–62. [PubMed]
69. Kroelinger CD, Oths KS. Partner support and pregnancy wantedness. Birth. 2000;27(2):112–9. [PubMed]
70. Martin LT, McNamara MJ, Milot AS, Halle T, Hair EC. The effects of father involvement during pregnancy on receipt of prenatal care and maternal smoking. Matern Child Health J. 2007;11(6):595–602. [PubMed]
71. Westney OE, Cole OJ, Munford TL. Adolescent unwed prospective fathers: readiness for fatherhood and behaviors toward the mother and the expected infant. Adolescence. 1986;21(84):901–11. [PubMed]
72. Bailey BA, Daugherty RA. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: incidence and associated health behaviors in a rural population. Matern Child Health J. 2007;11(5):495–503. [PubMed]
73. Coleman DH, Straus MA. Marital power, conflict, and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. Violence Vict. 1986;1(2):141–57. [PubMed]
74. LaViolette A, Barnett O. It could happen to anyone: why battered women stay. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications; 2000.
75. Berman BA, Wong GC, Bastani R, et al. Household smoking behavior and ETS exposure among children with asthma in low-income, minority households. Addict Behav. 2003;28(1):111–28. [PubMed]
76. Gonzales M, Malcoe LH, Kegler MC, Espinoza J. Prevalence and predictors of home and automobile smoking bans and child environmental tobacco smoke exposure: a cross-sectional study of U.S. and Mexico-born Hispanic women with young children. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:265. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
77. Shelley D, Fahs MC, Yerneni R, Qu J, Burton D. Correlates of household smoking bans among Chinese Americans. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006;8(1):103–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
78. Wakefield M, Banham D, Martin J, Ruffin R, McCaul K, Badcock N. Restrictions on smoking at home and urinary cotinine levels among children with asthma. Am J Prev Med. 2000;19(3):188–92. [PubMed]
79. Martinez-Donate AP, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, Gonzalez-Perez GJ, Adams MA, Kotay A. Correlates of home smoking bans among Mexican-Americans. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(4):229–36. [PubMed]
80. Okah F, Choi WS, Okuyemi KS, Ahluwalia JS. Effect of children on home smoking restriction by inner-city smokers. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):244–9. [PubMed]
81. Everett KD, Gage J, Bullock L, Longo DR, Geden E, Madsen RW. A pilot study of smoking and associated behaviors of low-income expectant fathers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2005;7(2):269–76. [PubMed]
82. Sockrider MM, Hudmon KS, Addy R, Dolan Mullen P. An exploratory study of control of smoking in the home to reduce infant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5(6):901–10. [PubMed]
83. Hymowitz N, Schwab J, Haddock C, Pyle S, Moore G, Meshberg S. The pediatric resident training on tobacco project: baseline findings from the Parent/Guardian Tobacco Survey. Prev Med. 2005;41(1):334–41. [PubMed]
84. McBride CM, Curry SJ, Grothaus LC, Nelson JC, Lando H, Pirie PL. Partner smoking status and pregnant smoker’s perceptions of support for and likelihood of smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 1998;17(1):63–9. [PubMed]
85. Manfredi C, Cho YI, Crittenden KS, Dolecek TA. A path model of smoking cessation in women smokers of low socio-economic status. Health Educ Res. 2006;22(5):747–56. [PubMed]
86. Morasco BJ, Dornelas EA, Fischer EH, Oncken C, Lando HA. Spontaneous smoking cessation during pregnancy among ethnic minority women: a preliminary investigation. Addict Behav. 2006;31(2):203–10. [PubMed]
87. Quinn VP, Mullen PD, Ershoff DH. Women who stop smoking spontaneously prior to prenatal care and predictors of relapse before delivery. Addict Behav. 1991;16(1–2):29–40. [PubMed]
88. Woodby LL, Windsor RA, Snyder SW, Kohler CL, Diclemente CC. Predictors of smoking cessation during pregnancy. Addiction. 1999;94(2):283–92. [PubMed]
89. Arborelius E, Hallberg AC, Hakansson A. How to prevent exposure to tobacco smoke among small children: a literature review. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2000;89(434):65–70. [PubMed]
90. Benowitz NL. Cotinine as a biomarker of environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Epidemiol Rev. 1996;18(2):188–204. [PubMed]