Gifford 2003.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Location: USA Setting: community Recruitment: through newspaper and radio advertisements and flyers Study dates: not reported
Participants	N = 102 Specialist population?: no Definition of smoker used: self‐identified nicotine dependence, ≥ 10 cpd for the last 12 months Participant characteristics: 59% female; average age: 43 years; 77% white; 4% some high school or less; average cpd: 21; nicotine dependence: average FTND 5.4
Interventions	Comparator: nicotine replacement therapy Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face Intensity: 1‐h session plus weekly return visits to receive new patches for following week Pharmacotherapy: 7 weeks of nicotine patches (22 mg/d for 4 weeks, followed by patches of 11 mg/d for 3 weeks) Type of therapist/provider: psychiatrist with extensive training in the medical management of smoking cessation, including NRT, or psychiatry resident under supervision of psychiatrist BCTs: 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour, 11.1 Pharmacological support Intervention: ACT Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face (individual and group), telephone call if missed face‐to‐face individual session Intensity: 7 individual sessions and 7 group sessions over 7 weeks (duration of sessions not reported) Pharmacotherapy: none Type of therapist/provider: ACT therapist BCTs: 1.1 Goal setting (behaviour), 1.2 Problem solving, 1.9: Commitment, 7.3 Reduce prompts and cues, 8.7 Graded tasks, 12.6 Body changes
Outcomes	Definition of abstinence: 7‐day point prevalence Longest follow‐up: 12 months Biochemical verification: CO < 11 ppm Other relevant outcomes reported: negative affect
Notes	Relevant comparisons: ACT vs NRT Funding source: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (CA84813) Author conflicts of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “If participants were accepted into the study, they were randomly assigned to treatment condition using a random numbers generator”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Concealment not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Abstinence biochemically verified
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	At 12‐month follow‐up 38.3% (18/47) were lost to follow‐up in the intervention group and 23.6% (13/55) in the control group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available