Comparison 1. Non‐tailored self‐help vs no self‐help, pooled by amount of contact.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Neither group had face‐to‐face contact (long‐term abstinence)	17	20264	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.05 [0.92, 1.20]
1.1 Control group given no materials	11	13241	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.19 [1.03, 1.37]
1.2 Control group given leaflet/pamphlet	6	7023	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.71, 1.07]
2 Neither group had face‐to‐face contact (Becona studies only)	2	924	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	10.91 [5.03, 23.66]
2.1 Control group given no materials	2	924	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	10.91 [5.03, 23.66]
3 Both groups had face‐to‐face contact (long‐term abstinence)	4	2822	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.39 [1.03, 1.88]
3.1 Control group given no materials	3	1668	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.35 [0.80, 2.26]
3.2 Control group given leaflet/pamphlet	1	1154	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.42 [0.98, 2.04]
4 Both groups had face‐to‐face contact with advice (long‐term abstinence)	11	5365	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.76, 1.28]
4.1 Control group given no materials	8	3581	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.66, 1.27]
4.2 Control group given leaflet/pamphlet	3	1784	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.18 [0.71, 1.95]