Ganavadiya 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial Country: India Setting: inpatient substance use treatment center Eligibility criteria: included were patients admitted to the addiction treatment center with addiction to tobacco and alcohol, having a high level of tobacco dependence (Fagerstrom scale>5), and agreed to stay as inpatients in the treatment center for 25‐30 days. Excluded were participants with addiction only to alcohol and/or other substances and not tobacco, who were undergoing pharmacological interventions during the study period, who had known drug hypersensitivities, patients with epilepsy, pregnant, lactation, serious physical comorbidities, or low levels of dependence. Duration of follow‐up: 2 months Informed consent: not reported Ethical approvals: not reported
Participants	Sample size: 83 (27 reading‐writing therapy, 28 games‐narrative therapy, 28 motivational intervention only) Description of the target population: patients in inpatient treatment with alcohol and tobacco dependence Age: 32.2 years (SD=9.12) Sex: 100% male Race/Ethnicity: not reported Marital status: not reported Harmful alcohol use (baseline): practice: 2.89 (SD = 1.56) Co‐occurring disorders: 100% tobacco dependence
Interventions	Type: non‐pharmacologic Description: A) Reading‐writing therapy + motivational intervention: use of self‐help materials to motivate and guide behavior change. In each group session participants were given autobiographies of previous patients who had successful substance use treatment outcomes to read. In writing therapy, participants were given a diary and pen. They were asked to express their experience with substance use, adverse consequences, and potential benefits of reducing their substance use in these diaries; B) Games‐narrative therapy + motivational intervention: Cognitive, behavioral and motivational approaches to promote interaction between patients and divert participant's attention to rigorous activity to mask craving and withdrawal symptoms. The games included short mind games and puzzles. The narrative/story therapy consisted of sharing stories related to their personal life and addiction, including the relationship between their substance use and personal life circumstances. Delivery and frequency: A) not reported, group‐based; B) 2 hours per day for 25‐30 days of inpatient treatment, group or individual sessions Duration and provider: A) trained counselors Comparison group: motivational interviewing consisting of group counseling, individual counseling, and Anonymous meetings over the course of 25‐30 days of inpatient treatment; Provider was a trained counselor
Outcomes	Primary outcome(s): alcohol practice Primary outcome measurement tool(s): Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices related to alcohol Secondary outcome(s): none Secondary outcome measurement tool(s): N/A Time points: 1, 2 months
Notes	Study funding and conflicts of interest: not reported Linked study records: none
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "The randomization and group allocation were done on a quota basis in the de‐addiction center by the center in charge. The first five eligible participants admitted to the de‐addiction center were allotted to Group A, and then, the next five eligible participants to Group B and Group C, respectively. This group allocation strategy was followed as it was convenient to administer the intervention. The group code was entered on the assessment form of the participant following randomization and the information on the actual intervention offered to different groups was concealed from the investigator to ensure blinding in the study." Pg. 3
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "The randomization and group allocation were done on a quota basis in the de‐addiction center by the center in charge. The first five eligible participants admitted to the de‐addiction center were allotted to Group A, and then, the next five eligible participants to Group B and Group C, respectively. This group allocation strategy was followed as it was convenient to administer the intervention. The group code was entered on the assessment form of the participant following randomization and the information on the actual intervention offered to different groups was concealed from the investigator to ensure blinding in the study." Pg. 3
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel cannot be blinded for this type of intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Outcomes reported by participant not blind to intervention Quote: "The randomization and group allocation were done on a quota basis in the de‐addiction center by the center in charge. The first five eligible participants admitted to the de‐addiction center were allotted to Group A, and then, the next five eligible participants to Group B and Group C, respectively. This group allocation strategy was followed as it was convenient to administer the intervention. The group code was entered on the assessment form of the participant following randomization and the information on the actual intervention offered to different groups was concealed from the investigator to ensure blinding in the study." Pg. 3.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available