Skip to main content
. 2017 Dec 15;2017(12):CD001188. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001188.pub5

Meysman 2010.

Methods Setting: Surgical wards in 4 Flemish hospitals
 Recruitment: inpatient smokers on surgical wards
Participants 358 adult smokers admitted for surgery; randomized to experimental (178) or control (180) groups 63% men, mean age 43.2, 39% smoked > 20 cpd, 61% 10 ‐ 20 cpd
 Motivation to quit not required
Interventions 1. Brief nurse‐led counselling session; SoC assessed, and appropriate advice given, i.e. precontemplators got risks of smoking and health gains after cessation, contemplators got barriers and pitfalls to quitting, + raising self efficacy, and preparers were either referred to a SC counsellor of agreed a cessation plan with the nurse
 2. Standard booklet on smoking cessation
Level of intensity: High
Outcomes Self‐reported continuous abstinence on discharge and at 6 m post‐discharge
 Validation: None
Notes New for 2013 update. Intervention delivered by qualified smoking cessation nurse
4 in control group and 9 in experimental group used some form of pharmacological smoking cessation aid
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Participants stratified by SoC. Method of randomization not specified
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not specified
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Participants lost to follow‐up counted as smokers, exact numbers not provided