Marshall 2016.

Methods	Study design: RCT Location: Australia Setting: outpatient clinic Recruitment: "Smokers in the Queensland Lung Cancer Screening Study were invited to enrol in the sub‐study by letter prior to each scheduled CT screening scan".
Participants	Defining eligibility criteria?: attending lung cancer screening (age 60 to 74 years; ≥ 30 pack year smoking) Participant characteristics: 55 older smokers; 20/55 (36.4%) female; mean age: control = 63.0, intervention = 63.0; mean cpd: control = 25.0, intervention = 25.0; nicotine dependence: mean FTND = control = 6.0, intervention = 6.0 Motivation to quit?: not selected on motivation
Interventions	Control: non‐tailored printed materials, quit‐line details Intervention: MI counselling: single face‐to‐face counselling session on the day of attendance for lung cancer screening plus audio cessation advice (on mp3 player), plus written quit materials Provider: physician Intensity: one‐off session lasting an average of 26.5 minutes Was MI fidelity monitored?: no
Outcomes	Definition of cessation used: 7‐day point prevalence Length of longest follow‐up: 12 months Validation: exhaled carbon monoxide >= 10 parts per million "However CO not always obtainable at the 12‐month time point because the CT protocol allowed scans to take place between 11 and 15 months after the previous scan (one intervention group and three control group quitters had exhaled CO < 10 ppm, the remainder were not tested)." Was mental health and/or well‐being measured at follow‐up?: no Was quality of life measured at follow‐up?: no
Funding source	"Queensland Health, Smart State Research Grant (388600); National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) National Research Centre for Asbestos‐Related Diseases (NRCARD) (440812); The Prince Charles Hospital Foundation (FRC0207‐24)."
Author conflicts of interest	"None to declare"
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Group allocation sequence was generated at randomisation using a random number generator.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	QUOTE: "Group allocation was concealed at randomization". No further detail given
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Although biochemical verification was planned, the investigators could not attempt it in all participants due to the timing of hospital appointments. Therefore, we have not been able to use verified rates. Amount and intensity of contact differed between study groups.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	3/28 (10.7%) intervention group participants and 2/27 (7.4%) control group participants did not return 12‐month questionnaires and were assumed to be smokers.