Madurasinghe 2017.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RT Groups: intervention group (pharmacy workers trained in smoking cessation); control (no treatment)
Participants	Pharmacies: 12 (7 intervention; 5 control) Pharmacy worker: pharmacists and counter assistants Pharmacy user: 621 (302 intervention; 319 control) mean age: 45.2 ± 11.0 years % female: intervention 73.7%; control 43.8% Setting: urban Country: UK
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: training in communication and behaviour change skills Delivered by: health psychologist and community pharmacist Type: behaviour change, interactive practice based Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face TDF: knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, beliefs about capabilities, belief about consequences, memory, social support, environment, context and resources, Duration: 2 x 2.5‐hour sessions Pharmacy worker control: no training ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: optimised smoking cessation programme Delivered by: pharmacy worker Type: behaviour change (smoking) Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face TDF: knowledge, belief about capability, belief about consequences, goals, environment, context and resources Duration: 4 sessions of up to 30 minutes Pharmacy user control: Usual care
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: Uptake: 12 of the 54 pharmacies invited participated Behaviour: throughput of smokers ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: not assessed Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: quit rate (cotinine); retention Quality of life: not assessed Process: not assessed Costs: not assessed
Notes	Study/intervention name: Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacy (STOP) Funding source: National Institute of Health Research,UK Steed 2017 (cited under Madurasinghe 2017) also refers to this study
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation generated using Stata 12 software.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Independent statistician generated and administered randomisation list.
Baseline outcome measures similar	Unclear risk	Not reported
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	Differences in age and % female
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low attrition
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Protection against contamination	Low risk	Cluster randomised
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported
Other bias	High risk	Only 12 of 54 pharmacies participated, no comparison with those who were not recruited
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Pharmacy workers were aware of intervention arm.