Lee 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: Cluster‐randomized controlled trial Setting: Outpatient clinic of the Department of Family Medicine and the Health Screening Center of Seoul National University Hospital, South Korea Recruitment: Opportunitistically in practice
Participants	414 adults who smoked, av. age 48, 92% M, av. cpd 17
Interventions	Intervention: a 7‐minute long animated video containing information and options about smoking cessation. Following this, physicians gave a brief consultation about smoking problems or prescribed medications if participants asked for them Control: routine medical care only. The participants were not provided with the decision aid, any proactive smoking cessation counseling or prescription
Outcomes	PPA (undefined) at 6m Validation: None Measures of provider implementation: Assist‐Meds
Funding Source	This work was supported by a grant for investigator‐initiated research from Pfizer (Pfizer Reference #WS2033889). None of the sponsors had a role in any aspect of the present study, including design and conduct of study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript
Author's declarations of interest	The authors declared that they had no conflict of interest and that none of the sponsors had a role in any aspect of the study
Notes	Strategy: Video Level: Patient Comparison type: Single component vs. standard care
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Sequence Generation	High risk	Based on the month. Exam rooms were randomized based on their number and the month (i.e. odd numbered exam rooms were intervention rooms)
Allocation concealment	High risk	Could have been foreseen as randomization was based on the month
Blinding of outcome assessors All outcomes	Low risk	Smoking status was self‐reported. The intervention was a decision aid video so there was no person‐to‐person contact in either group
Incomplete outcome data All outcomes	High risk	Attrition rates were under 50% but the difference between groups was greater than 20%. The overall loss to follow‐up was 20.5% (n = 85/414); 33.8% (n = 66/195) in the intervention group and 8.7% (n = 19/219) in the control group were lost to follow‐up at 6 months
Recruitment bias (cluster RCTs only)	Low risk	Participants were affiliated with the Department of Family Medicine and the Health Screening Center of Seoul National University Hospital before randomization
Balanced baseline characteristics? (cluster RCTs only)	Low risk	QUOTE: "None of the characteristics was significantly different between the control and intervention groups"
Adjustment for clustering in analysis? (cluster RCTs only)	Low risk	QUOTE: "To investigate the impact of the decision aid on the outcomes, univariate and multivariate logistic regression tests were used, with accounting for the clustering effect of nesting physicians"; "The intracluster correlation coefficient values were 0.21 for the primary outcome variable and 0.10 for the secondary outcome variable..."