Bastian 2012.

Methods	Setting: North Carolina, USA; Medical Center Recruitmenet: Mailed smokers an introductory letter from the Chief of Cardiology, Chief of Oncology, or a primary care physician (the Principal Investigator (PI)) informing them of the study and encouraging smoking cessation
Participants	471 smokers enrolled in Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, receiving treatment for chronic illnesses (i.e. cancer, cardiovascular disease, HTN, diabetes, COPD) and wanting to quit in the next 30 days; 91.5% M, av. age 59.2, av. cigs/day not reported
Interventions	1. Standard telephone counselling, a letter from a VA physician encouraging smoking cessation, NRT, if not contra‐indicated, a S‐H cessation kit, and up to 5 TC calls (every 3 ‐ 4 weeks, av. duration 20 minutes) 2. "Family‐supported telephone counseling, included all components of the standard TC arm plus an enhanced family‐supported intervention that included a support skills booklet and additional telephone counseling content focusing on social support skills [...] The main distinction between the two arms of this comparative effectiveness study was the family‐supported intervention that aimed to help increase positive interactions between the participant and their designated support person, to facilitate smoking cessation [...] Participants randomized to family support‐based intervention also received an 8‐page disease‐specific family support booklet."
Outcomes	Abstinence at 12 m (7‐day PP) Validation: available for only 50.5% of the participants
Notes	New for 2018 update Funding: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, and Health Services Research and Development. IIR‐05‐202." Declarations of interest: "SCG serves as a consultant to Gilead Sciences and Watermark Research Partners. Although these relationships are not perceived to represent a conflict with the present work, it is included in the spirit of full disclosure. Presented in part at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting, Phoenix AZ May 2011."
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "blocked randomization, stratified by sex and disease type"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	The investigators mailed participants saliva‐sampling kits to measure cotinine, but the return rates for saliva samples were low at all follow‐ups. Level of personal contact differed between arms
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Follow‐up rates were 86% and 81.1% at 5 months and 12 months, respectively. Loss to follow‐up was similar in both arms."