Borland 2004.
Methods | Setting: Quitline, Australia Recruitment: callers wanting written self‐help materials | |
Participants | 772 baseline smokers (baseline quitters not included in this review), 54% female (all participants), approximately 47% aged < 30, average cpd 19 | |
Interventions | ∙ Standard self‐help quit pack ∙ Additional tailored letters, based on assessment phone calls; average number 5.7 (SD 4.6) | |
Outcomes | Abstinence at 12 months (sustained for 6 months) Validation: none | |
Notes | 2 vs 1, tailored self‐help vs standard self‐help No control for effects of multiple contacts |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer‐generated ID numbers, even numbers allocated to intervention |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | ID number generated after agreement to participate obtained |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blinding not possible because of the nature of the intervention, but "participants in each condition [did] not know about the other condition unless they specifically asked ... (none did)" No blinding or validation of smoking status, but because of low‐contact nature of intervention, differential misreport of smoking unlikely |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Follow‐up 71.3%% for 1; 63.8% for 2 Losses included in ITT analysis Excluding losses would lower effect size |