Carpenter 2004.
| Methods | Study design: RCT Location: USA Setting: unknown Recruitment: proactive telephone calls through a national marketing company. The company used a database incorporating known smokers |
|
| Participants | N = 616 Specialist population?: no Participant characteristics: 431/616 (85%) female; average age: 39 y; average cig/day: 22; nicotine dependence: FTND 5.5 Preference for quitting abruptly versus gradually: not reported |
|
| Interventions | Comparator 1: No treatment; all calls were for assessments only Modality of support: telephone Overall contact time: 7 mins Number of sessions: 3 Pharmacotherapy: none Quit date set?: no Comparator 2: Participants received counselling based on the 5 Rs of quitting: 1) relevance of smoking to the individual; 2) risks of continued smoking; 3) rewards of quitting; 4) roadblocks to success; 5) on a repeated basis, and were given brief advice to quit Modality of support: telephone Overall contact time: 45 mins Number of sessions: 3 Pharmacotherapy: either nicotine gum or patch were offered alongside the advice to quit (week 6 onward). Those who set a quit date could continue using NRT Quit date set?: yes Intervention: Participants received instruction on 2 behavioural reduction strategies: 1) hierarchical (selectively eliminating cigarettes throughout the day) or 2) scheduled reduction (increasing the time intervals between cigarettes). They could choose how much or little to reduce and a reduction goal was set for those who wanted to reduce. At week 6 brief advice to quit was provided Modality of support: telephone Overall contact time: 45 mins Number of sessions: 3 Pharmacotherapy: either nicotine gum or patch were offered alongside reduction (weeks 0 ‐ 6). Participants could continue use from the brief advice to quit (week 6) if they set a quit date Quit date set?: yes |
|
| Outcomes | Definition of abstinence: 7‐day point prevalence Longest follow‐up: 6 m Biochemical validation: none |
|
| Funding source | National Institute on Drug Abuse grant (DA 11557); National Institute on Drug Abuse grant (DA 07242) to Matthew J. Carpenter; National Institute on Drug Abuse Senior Scientist Award (DA 00450) to John R. Hughes | |
| Author conflicts of interest | Not reported | |
| Notes | Relevant comparisons: 1) Reduction versus no treatment; 2) Reduction versus abrupt | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information given |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information given |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | No biochemical verification and the amount of contact between arms differed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported |