Fisher 1998.

Methods	Study design: controlled before‐after (independent samples) Sampling frame: non‐institutionalized adults residing within block boundaries of intervention neighborhoods or within zip code boundaries of control areas with a working telephone Sampling method: random‐digit dialing, then individuals selected at random within the household based on the number and sex of adult members of the household and the last digit of the telephone number Collection method: telephone interview (n = 1491) Description of the community coalition: Neighbors for a Smoke Free North Side was initiated by a partnership between Washington University and Grace Hill Neighborhood Services in conjunction with neighborhood steering committees composed of 10 to 15 volunteer community members and 1 Grace Hill staff person to serve as a facilitator. A "Nuts and Bolts" committee comprising representatives from Washington University and Grace Hill and the facilitator from each neighborhood committee performed central planning of project activities. Neighborhood committees were responsible for approving and carrying out all activities. In addition, a city‐wide advisory council with representatives from major corporate, medical, religious, and community groups, most of whom were African American, met monthly to provide resources and advice
Participants	Communities: urban neighborhoods in St Louis and Kansas City Country: USA Ages included in assessment: 18+ Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: historically underserved, low income, urban settings Intervention community (population size): 3 neighborhoods of St Louis, MO (38,000) Comparison community (population size): 4 zip codes of Kansas City, MO (256,500)
Interventions	Name of intervention: Neighbors for a Smoke Free North Side Theory: not reported Aim: to evaluate a community organization approach to smoking cessation among African Americans Description of costs and resources: not reported Components of the intervention: Intervention activities included smoking cessation classes, billboards, door‐to‐door campaigns, and a “gospelfest” Start date: April 1990 Duration: 24 months
Outcomes	Outcomes and measures: smoking prevalence (self report) Time points: baseline (1990) and follow‐up (1992)
Notes	Outcomes measured at population level by telephone survey Source of funding: government
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Intervention not randomly assigned
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	No allocation concealment
Baseline outcome measurement similar	Low risk	Smoking prevalence exactly the same between intervention and control groups at baseline
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	Intervention and control groups differed on many demographic characteristics
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Population‐based telephone survey
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Independent samples lower the risk of incomplete outcome data
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No blinding was performed; unclear whether this would have any effect on self reported smoking status
Protection against contamination	Low risk	No protection against contamination noted; groups resided in different cities
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Main outcome reported