Okuyemi 2007.

Methods	Setting: 20 low‐income public housing developments, USA Recruitment: residents attending community health fairs, no contraindications to NRT, not selected for motivation
Participants	173 smokers; ˜70% F, av. age 43, av. cpd ˜17. ‘Although we did not screen for motivation as part of our study inclusion criteria, motivation to quit was moderately high in both groups at baseline’ Providers: specialist counsellors
Interventions	Intervention: MI counselling in‐person at weeks 0 & 3, phone on day 10, wk 5 & 20. 8 week supply of 4 mg nicotine gum Control: Same schedule of MI for increasing fruit & veg consumption, free supplies, cookbook
Outcomes	Abstinence at 6m (7‐day PP) Validation: CO ≤10 ppm
Notes	No correction for clustering. Length of sessions not reported, estimated as 91‐300 mins.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Cluster randomized by housing unit, stratified by elderly vs family development
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Treatment assignment was revealed to the research staff only after each health fair was completed. A timed e‐mail was sent to the study coordinator at 6:00 p.m. after each health fair was complete along with a sealed envelope containing the randomization code.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	19 (28.8%) I, 23 (21.5%) C lost to follow‐up, included as smokers.