Vander Weg 2016.
| Methods | Setting: USA; rural setting Recruitment: People meeting basic eligibility criteria were sent a letter offering them participation in the trial, to which they could respond by returning a self‐addressed postcard or contacting study staff by phone. Those expressing interest were mailed an informed consent document and baseline questionnaire, which included Vander Weg et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:811 Page 2 of 11 screening items to assess for eligibility for the supplemental behavioral counselling modules (described below) |
|
| Participants | 63 rural Veteran daily cigarette smokers who were interested in quitting, 87.3% M, av. age 56.8, av. cigs/day 24.7 | |
| Interventions | 1. Referral to state tobacco quitline: Referred by fax to the tobacco quitline for their state of residence. Quitlines subsequently contacted participants to initiate treatment 2. Tailored telephone counselling: Combines counselling on tobacco use and related issues including depressive symptoms, risky alcohol use, and weight concerns. 6 calls, 1 per week, for 20 ‐ 30 mins The approach to pharmacotherapy was the same for both groups ‐ NRT, bupropion, varenicline |
|
| Outcomes | Self‐reported abstinence at 6 m (7‐day PP) Validation: none |
|
| Notes | New for 2018 update Funding: "The work reported in this manuscript was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Rural Health (Project number 12‐CR6)." Declarations of interest: none declared |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "randomly assigned to treatment conditions based on a computer‐generated algorithm on a 1:1 allocation ratio using simple randomization without blocking. The computerized random allocation sequence was generated by the study data manager." |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Abstinence not biochemically validated. Level of personal contact differed between arms |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Dropout was twice as high in the tailored intervention as in the standard tobacco quitline group |