Aung 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: randomized controlled trial Setting: 7 primary healthcare settings in rural districts where people often grow tobacco in their gardens and consume home‐made hand‐rolled cigarettes, Northern Thailand Recruitment: QUOTE: "Recruitment for the study started simultaneously at seven primary health care units within the mobile non‐communicable diseases clinic network of Maetha district, Lampang province, in June 2012"
Participants	319 people who smoked, aged between 35 and 80 years and have diabetes and/or hypertension; who had never succeeded in quitting smoking; 28.9% female; median age 64 years
Interventions	Intervention: Participants received: 1) adjunctive counseling; 2) carbon monoxide testing; 3) NRT gum; 4) a family‐assisted smoking cessation diary Nurses attended 2 pre‐intervention training workshops to deliver the intervention service package Control: participants received brief advice and a reminder to quit by a healthcare worker on subsequent visits to the hospital. Participants were requested to inform the healthcare worker when and if they quit smoking
Outcomes	CO‐validated smoking abstinence at 6m (self‐reported rates were also collected at 12m, but are not used in our analysis) Validation: CO
Funding Source	Ministry of Education, Japan
Author's declarations of interest	Authors declared that they had no competing interests.
Notes	Strategy: multicomponent (adjunctive counseling, CO monitoring, cost‐free medications, provider training) Level: patient, Provider Comparison type: multicomponent vs. standard care
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Sequence Generation	Low risk	QUOTE: "Random sequences are generated by the statistician on the basis of blocks of 24"
Allocation concealment	Low risk	QUOTE: "The allocated arm for each participant will be provided to the study sites PCUs in opaque, sealed envelopes"
Blinding of outcome assessors All outcomes	Low risk	Abstinence was biochemically verified
Incomplete outcome data All outcomes	Low risk	The overall loss to follow‐up was 3.8% (n = 12/319); 1.9% (n = 3/160) in the intervention group and 5.7% (n = 9/159) in the control group were lost to follow‐up at 12 months