Prochaska 2005.

Methods	Setting: community, USA Recruitment: primary care patients proactively recruited by phone; at risk for one of the targeted health behaviours
Participants	1211 smokers from total of 5407 participants; 70% female (full sample), average age 45 years (full), average cpd 17, 31% at pre‐contemplation phase, 46% contemplators, 23.5% in preparation
Interventions	∙ Assessment only (completed questionnaires on 3 occasions) ∙ Expert system ‐ tailored 3 to 5‐page report at 0 months, 6 months, and 12 months and manual
Outcomes	Abstinence at 24 months; point prevalence Validation: none
Notes	2 vs 1, tailoring Sustained abstinence also an outcome "same pattern of results" but details not reported Number of smokers by group at baseline not reported; data requested
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	Telephone assessors blinded but unclear if participants knew the nature of the other arm; no validation; interventions at different levels of intensity, so differential misreport judged possible
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	35% loss to follow‐up at 24 months Insufficient data to include non‐respondents in meta‐analysis, but no interaction between missing data and intervention