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