Prochaska 2001a.
Methods | Setting: managed care organisation, USA Recruitment: smokers identified by survey of members; 85% recruited to a study | |
Participants | 1447 smokers (967 at 18 months' follow‐up); 56% female, average age 38, average cpd 20 | |
Interventions | ∙ Assessment only (completed questionnaires on 4 occasions) ∙ Expert system ‐ tailored 2 to 3‐page report at 0 months, 3 months, and 6 months, and SoC‐matched manual ∙ As second bullet above plus telephone counselling ∙ As third bullet above plus computer for scheduled cigarette reduction | |
Outcomes | Abstinence at 18 months, sustained for 6 months (other measures of abstinence also reported) Validation: none | |
Notes | 2 vs 1, tailoring. 3 contributes to telephone counselling review; 4 not included Arm 2 is also evaluated in Velicer 1999 results | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Randomised; method not described |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details given |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Self‐reported outcomes from participants not blinded to treatment condition; treatment more intensive than control, and no information on blinding reported |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | MA includes losses to follow‐up and refusals Study author analysis suggests ITT analysis is biased Sensitivity analysis (comparison 99) tests impact on outcome |