Singh 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Location: not reported Setting: community Recruitment: by referrals from families, supported living and group home supervisors, and primary care physicians Study dates: not reported
Participants	N = 51 Specialist population?: adults with mild intellectual disability Definition of smoker used: unclear Participant characteristics: 18% female; average age: 34 years; average cpd: 12; average years smoking: 16
Interventions	Comparator: treatment as usual, including motivational therapies, behaviour therapies, NRTs, non‐nicotine medicines, or a combination of the above Mode of delivery: not reported Intensity: unclear, varied across participants Pharmacotherapy: none specifically provided, although for some usual care included NRT Type of therapist/provider: community therapists BCTs: 2.3 Self‐monitoring (behaviour), 11.1 Pharmacological support Intervention: training in the use of mindfulness and meditation techniques Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face (individual or small groups) or via Skype Intensity: 2 training sessions (1 x 1 h, 1 x 45 min), 10 supervised practice sessions (x 30 min over 5 days), weekly contact with trainer Pharmacotherapy: none Type of therapist/provider: trainer with a 35‐year history of service provision to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and long‐standing personal meditation practice, clinical expertise, and experience in mindful service delivery to individuals at all levels of intellectual functioning  BCTs: 1.9 Commitment, 2.3 Self‐monitoring of behaviour, 12.4 Distraction, 12.6 Body changes
Outcomes	Definition of abstinence: 7‐day point prevalence Longest follow‐up: 12 months Biochemical verification: none Other relevant outcomes reported: none
Notes	Relevant comparisons: mindfulness and meditation training vs treatment as usual Funding source: not reported Author conflicts of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Randomisation was via alternate placement in the experimental and control groups
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Concealment not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Abstinence self‐reported, differing levels of face‐to‐face contact between arms
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Only reported attrition during treatment
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available