Burford 2013.

Methods	Design: RT Groups: intervention (photo‐aging smoking cessation); control group (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: 8 Pharmacy worker: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy users: 160 smokers mean age: intervention 24.2 ± 4.1 years; control 25.1 ± 4.1 years % female: intervention 68.7%; control 56.2% Setting: urban Country: Perth, Australia
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: standard 2‐minute smoking cessation advice from the pharmacist plus participants were digitally photo‐aged so they could preview images of themselves as a lifelong smoker and as a nonsmoker, and were invited to view the age‐processed images, received smoking cessation advice, and were screened for body dysmorphia. Delivered by: unclear whether pharmacist or researcher delivered the intervention Type: behaviour change/smoking cessation Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face TDF: knowledge, beliefs about consequences Duration: unclear – probably a single session with email of image sent to client. Not clear if there was further support from pharmacist. Follow‐up: 6 months Pharmacy user control: standard 2‐minute smoking cessation advice from the pharmacist.
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: carbon monoxide (CO) breath test Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: Fagerström Smoking Dependence scale Quality of life: not assessed Process: study designed questions concerning: attitudes toward personal appearance, opinions about health risks associated with smoking, and perceived barriers to quitting smoking; willingness to pay (WTP) for the digital aging service. Cost: estimated cost per participant; cost‐effectivenes
Notes	Study/intervention name: none given Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Randomisation by researcher on alternate weeks
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "Allocation to groups was not performed as eligible participants were recruited, but according to the treatment being used at the pharmacy during that week."
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	Quote: "there were no significant differences between the control and intervention group on demographic or smoking dependence at baseline"
Baseline characteristics similar	Unclear risk	There were differences between groups for concern about physical appearance, and the belief that facial wrinkles are associated with smoking.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Few participants lost
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "Because of the nature of the intervention, the participants and researcher could not be blinded to the study group."
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Allocation to group dependent on week to avoid contamination, but unclear if successful
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to have been reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Low numbers of control groups self report quit status was verified with objective carbon monoxide measurement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "Because of the nature of the intervention, the participants and researcher could not be blinded to the study group."