Haas 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: Randomized controlled trial Setting: General practices in greater Boston, USA Recruitment: Eligible patients identified through electronic medical record and received a mailed invitation letter
Participants	707 adults who smoked, living in a low or moderate household income census tract. (399 intervention, 308 control) av.age 50, 68% F, 15 cpd
Interventions	Intervention: participants received up to 4 counseling calls, a 6‐week supply of NRT patch, access to community‐based referrals to address sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use, and integration of all components into their normal health care through the electronic health records system Control: participants received usual care. No further details on the usual care reported
Outcomes	7d PPA at 9m Validation: None
Funding Source	Lung Cancer Disparities Center at the Harvard School of Public Health (funded by National Cancer Institute grant P50 CA148596) and the Harvard Catalyst and from the Harvard Clinicaland Translational Science Center (funded by National Institutes of Health [NIH] grant 1 UL1 RR025758‐01 and financial contributions from participating institutions)
Author's declarations of interest	Authors declared that they had no conflict of interest
Notes	Strategy: Adjunctive counseling + cost‐free medications Level: Patient Comparison type: Multicomponent vs. standard care
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Sequence Generation	High risk	QUOTE: "Randomisation was performed in batches based on the date of the clinic visit..."
Allocation concealment	High risk	QUOTE: "...The first patient randomised in each batch was randomised to intervention status; batches with an odd number of participants therefore resulted in an imbalance in the size of the intervention and control groups"
Blinding of outcome assessors All outcomes	High risk	Smoking status was self‐report and there was variable contact between groups
Incomplete outcome data All outcomes	Low risk	The overall loss to follow‐up was 34.2% (n = 242/707); 36.1% (n = 144/399) in the intervention group and 31.8% (n = 98/308) in the control group were lost to follow‐up at 9 months