Both smoking during pregnancy and secondhand smoke exposure are associated with reduced health outcomes. However, limited consistent evidence exists of risks of secondhand smoke exposure in pregnancy. Currently, inadequate smoking cessation services exist in Irish maternity hospitals. To identify the number of pregnant women smoking during pregnancy and to identify their exposure to secondhand smoke, we conducted a cross-sectional observational pilot study in one regional maternity hospital in Ireland in July/August 2018. Respondents were (1) women attending antenatal clinics and (2) postpartum women before discharge. Variables measured included smoking status of pregnant women and partner status, demographic variables, secondhand smoke exposure, and support for hospital smoke-free policy and development of smoking cessation services. The overall response rate was 42.2% in this study. The response rate was 56.5% (111/196) from postnatal wards and 37.3% (215/577) from antenatal clinics. Over 40% of respondents reported they had smoked during their lifetime. The majority of women (70%) reported quitting smoking before their pregnancy. Few women were active smokers. Almost 40% reported exposure to tobacco smoke in the previous week (38.5%); 16.9% reported living with a smoker, a critical factor in increased risk (Odds Ratio (OR) 3.89, 95% CI = 1.86-8.15, p < 0.001). Approximately 10% of postnatal mothers reported that their newborn would travel home with a smoker. Support for a no-smoking hospital policy was very high as was support for the development of cessation services. No documentation of secondhand smoke exposure for pregnant women or newborns is sought or recorded routinely in the hospital. A systems approach to develop smoking cessation programmes in maternity care should include screening and documenting of secondhand smoke exposure risks for women during pregnancy, and for their newborns at discharge, to improve health outcomes and protect human rights.

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.