Methods	Cluster-randomised trial to evaluate dissemination of a behavioUrally-based program to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy Study conducted in Queensland (Australia). Data collection dates not stated
Participants	Inclusion criteria: Public hospitals which provided antenatal and delivery care for 10 or more patients a year, had less than 50% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, and did not currently provide any antenatal smoking cessation care Exclusion criteria: Not further specified. Recruitment: Hospitals were matched on number of births, location of population centre (rural/metropolitan), and whether they had a specific antenatal clinic 80 (92% public hospitals) hospitals eligible. 10 omitted as they stopped providing antenatal care. 70 hospitals (35 pairs) included Baseline characteristics: Characteristics of individuals not reported. No outcomes included in study so not coded.
Interventions	Control: Received ‘awareness’ phase of intervention based in Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory. Flyers were distributed to all hospitals Intervention: Control +‘Persuasion’ phase, which included an educational workshop and presentation. ‘Implementation phase’ where each hospital conducted the recommended program Main intervention strategy: Intensive dissemination vs less intensive intervention. No outcomes to include in analysis Intensity: NA
Outcomes	Self-reported implementation of program at each hospital. Success was defined as the routine offer of an evidence-based smoking cessation program to at least 80% of the pregnant clients who smoke
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors’ judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Report states hospitals were randomised into intervention and control groups, within matched pairs
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Complete follow-up could not be obtained primarily due to the inability to contact either the medical superintendent or the director of nursing after a minimum of 3 attempts High attrition (37% hospitals), though those not responding were included in analysis as ‘not implemented’
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Smoking cessation rates not reported, but not included as an aim of this dissemination study
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias detected.
Biochemical validation of smoking abstinence (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Smoking status not assessed in this dissemination study.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear whether control hospitals were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated.
Incomplete implementation	High risk	37% reported as ‘not implemented’.
Equal baseline characteristics in study arms	Low risk	Matching of the hospitals was successful as there were no differences in number of births, rurality, and whether they had a specialised antenatal service at baseline
Contamination of control group	Low risk	Cluster design likely to minimise risk of contamination.