| Methods |
Country: UK
Setting: Primary care clinics (11) |
| Participants |
751 smokers who attended a health check (having been randomly allocated to an intervention offering a health check ‐ see Sanders 1989a) |
| Interventions |
1. Health check from a practice nurse; advice, leaflet and offer of follow‐up
2. As 1, with demonstration of expired CO levels |
| Outcomes |
Sustained abstinence at 1 yr (self‐report of not smoking at 1 m and 12 m and who gave date on which they last smoked as before the 1 m follow‐up)
Validation: urine cotinine in a sample of participants indicated a relatively high deception rate |
| Notes |
2 vs 1 for effect of CO demonstration as an adjunct to nurse advice
This was part of same study as Sanders 1989a, and randomized a subgroup of participants in the main study |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
High risk |
See above (Sanders 1989a) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
High risk |
See above |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
See above |
