Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 31;2018(1):CD001746. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001746.pub4

Eriksen 1996.

Methods Country: Norway
 Setting: health centres
 RCT
Participants 443 families with 1 or more smoking parent presenting with a child to a well baby check at 6 weeks or 2 or 4 years
Interventions Intervention: 5‐minute counselling from health visitor on harmful effects of parent smoking on children and how to prevent them (stop smoking indoors/in living rooms or quit completely). Three brochures distributed (harm of passive smoking, measures to prevent passive smoking, self‐help cessation manual) along with a list of smoking cessation courses
 Control: given no information unless participants asked for it, until after the period of study. Physicians were asked to withhold their usual advice. Self‐completed questionnaires were administered at the visit and 1 month later.
Outcomes Parent behaviour by self‐report at baseline and at 1 month
Type of intervention Well‐child (child health check)
Notes Retention 363/443 (82%)
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk "Randomly allocated"; method of sequence generation not specified
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not specified
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk ITT analysis; exact numbers not provided: "The withdrawal was small and probably not intervention related because the proportion of drop‐outs was about the same in both groups"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Self‐report only, no validation used; however no evidence of effect, so differential misreport judged to be unlikely
Other bias Unclear risk "A "contamination" of information may have taken place from the intervention group to the control group because parents from the two groups may have talked together during the study period."