Table 1. Primary outcomes from studies which met inclusion criteria, however outcomes were not able to be included in metaanalysis.

Study ID	Main findings	Rationale for not including outcomes in meta-analysis
Byrd 1993	There was no statistically significant difference in smoking status among those who received either type ofmedia or nurse counselling	Results could not be included as smoking cessation rates were not reported by intervention group
Graham 1992	There was no decrease in the rate of low birthweight for women who received the intervention	Smoking outcomes were not reported. Birthweight outcomes were not included in this review, as aspects other than the smoking component of the intervention may have had an effect on birthweight, and it is unclear how many smokers were in each group, or what proportion quit
Haug 2004	There was no significant difference in smoking between the intervention (motivational enhancement therapy) and control groups on self-reported cigarettes per day, mean carbon monoxide or mean cotinine	Study reports actual outcome data for movement in stages of change only. Outcome data for smoking cessation, cigarettes per day, carbon monoxide and cotinine levels are not reported
Hiett 2000	Significantly more women were able to quit smoking when enrolled in the intervention	Actual cessation rates not reported (poster abstract only available)
Hughes 2000	There was no difference between intervention and control groups in mean delta stage of change or 12-month rate of maintained cessation in pregnant women (-0.62 vs -0.65)	Data from intervention and control Outcomes were combined for intervention and control groups in pregnant women. Unable to extract numbers
Lowe 2002	At 1 month, 65% of behaviourally-based intervention hospitals agreed to provide materials about smoking cessation, compared to 3% control hospitals. After 1 year, 43%intervention hospitals still providedmaterials, compared to 9% of control hospitals. McNemar’s Chi2 indicates a statistically meaningful difference between the proportion of intervention hospitals implementing the program and the proportion of control hospitals implementing the program (2 1 = 12, P = 0.0005)	Implementation data only included. No smoking cessation data provided
Manfredi 1999	Compared to controls, smokers attending family planning, prenatal and well-child clinics, exposed to the intervention were more likely to have quit (14.5% vs 7. 7%)	It was not possible to separate out which data was related to pregnantwomen, as opposed towomen recruited from family planning and well child clinics. Further, it was not clear at what stage in pregnancy women were recruited and what the post-partum time points were
Moore 1998	There was no significant difference in LBWwere 10.9% in the intervention group and 14.0% in controls (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03). Preterm births rates were 9.7 in the intervention group and 11.0 in the controls (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.22)	Smoking outcomes were not reported. Birthweight and pretermbirth outcomes were not included in this review, as aspects other than the smoking component of the intervention may have had an effect on birthweight and preterm births
Olds 2002	Significant reduction in mean cotinine among women who smoked at baseline. Mean reduction of 12.32 ng/mL in the control group, compared to asmean reduction of 259.00 ng/mL in nurse-home visiting group	Study reports the mean cotinine reduction only, not mean cotinine levels or smoking cessation rates. It is also unclear how many randomised women were included in this analysis

CI: confidence interval

LBW: low birthweight

RR: risk ratio