Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT.

Background: Physical activity can support smoking cessation for smokers wanting to quit, but there have been no studies on supporting smokers wanting only to reduce. More broadly, the effect of motivational support for such smokers is unclear. Objectives: The objectives were to determine if motivational support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking for smokers not wanting to immediately quit helps reduce smoking and increase abstinence and physical activity, and to determine if this intervention is cost-effective. Design: This was a multicentred, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1) controlled superiority trial with accompanying trial-based and model-based economic evaluations, and a process evaluation. Setting and participants: Participants from health and other community settings in four English cities received either the intervention (n = 457) or usual support (n = 458). Intervention: The intervention consisted of up to eight face-to-face or telephone behavioural support sessions to reduce smoking and increase physical activity. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were carbon monoxide-verified 6- and 12-month floating prolonged abstinence (primary outcome), self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of quit attempts and carbon monoxide-verified abstinence at 3 and 9 months. Furthermore, self-reported (3 and 9 months) and accelerometer-recorded (3 months) physical activity data were gathered. Process items, intervention costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Results: The average age of the sample was 49.8 years, and participants were predominantly from areas with socioeconomic deprivation and were moderately heavy smokers. The intervention was delivered with good fidelity. Few participants achieved carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence [nine (2.0%) in the intervention group and four (0.9%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 2.30 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 7.56)] or 12-month prolonged abstinence [six (1.3%) in the intervention group and one (0.2%) in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 6.33 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 53.10)]. At 3 months, the intervention participants smoked fewer cigarettes than the control participants (21.1 vs. 26.8 per day). Intervention participants were more likely to reduce cigarettes by ≥ 50% by 3 months [18.9% vs. 10.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.90] and 9 months [14.4% vs. 10.0%; adjusted odds ratio 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29)], and reported more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 3 months [adjusted weekly mean difference of 81.61 minutes (95% confidence interval 28.75 to 134.47 minutes)], but not at 9 months. Increased physical activity did not mediate intervention effects on smoking. The intervention positively influenced most smoking and physical activity beliefs, with some intervention effects mediating changes in smoking and physical activity outcomes. The average intervention cost was estimated to be £239.18 per person, with an overall additional cost of £173.50 (95% confidence interval -£353.82 to £513.77) when considering intervention and health-care costs. The 1.1% absolute between-group difference in carbon monoxide-verified 6-month prolonged abstinence provided a small gain in lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (0.006), and a minimal saving in lifetime health-care costs (net saving £236). Conclusions: There was no evidence that behavioural support for smoking reduction and increased physical activity led to meaningful increases in prolonged abstinence among smokers with no immediate plans to quit smoking. The intervention is not cost-effective. Limitations: Prolonged abstinence rates were much lower than expected, meaning that the trial was underpowered to provide confidence that the intervention doubled prolonged abstinence. Future work: Further research should explore the effects of the present intervention to support smokers who want to reduce prior to quitting, and/or extend the support available for prolonged reduction and abstinence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN47776579. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

NHS pharmacological and behavioural support helps smokers wanting to quit, and physical activity may also help. It is unclear if behavioural support for those not ready to quit may lead to more quit attempts and abstinence from smoking. A total of 915 smokers who wanted to reduce their smoking, but who had not yet quit, were recruited and randomised to receive an intervention or brief support as usual (brief advice to quit), in Plymouth, London, Oxford and Nottingham. The intervention involved up to eight sessions (by telephone or in person) of motivational support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity (and more sessions to support a quit attempt). Participants self-reported smoking and physical activity information at the start of the trial and after 3 and 9 months. Self-reported quitters confirmed their abstinence with a biochemical test of expired air or saliva. Our main interest was in whether or not the groups differed in the proportion who remained abstinent for at least 6 months. Overall, only 1­2% remained abstinent for 6 months. Although it appeared that a greater proportion did so after receiving the intervention, because few participants were abstinent, the results are not conclusive. However, the intervention had beneficial effects on less rigorous outcomes, including a reduction in the self-reported number of cigarettes smoked, and a greater proportion of intervention than control participants with self-reported and biochemically verified abstinence at 3 months. The intervention also helped participants to reduce, by at least half, the number of cigarettes they smoked at 3 and 9 months, and to report more physical activity, but only at 3 months. Despite reasonable intervention engagement and some short-term changes in smoking and physical activity, the trial does not provide evidence that this intervention would help smokers to quit for at least 6 months nor would it be cost-effective, with an average cost of £239 per smoker.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support for prolonged abstinence for smokers wishing to reduce but not quit: Randomised controlled trial of physical activity assisted reduction of smoking (TARS).

AIMS: For smokers unmotivated to quit, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity on prolonged abstinence and related outcomes. DESIGN: A multi-centred pragmatic two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care and the community across four United Kingdom sites. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred and fifteen adult smokers (55% female, 85% White), recruited via primary and secondary care and the community, who wished to reduce their smoking but not quit. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to support as usual (SAU) (n = 458) versus multi-component community-based behavioural support (n = 457), involving up to eight weekly person-centred face-to-face or phone sessions with additional 6-week support for those wishing to quit. MEASUREMENTS: Ideally, cessation follows smoking reduction so the primary pre-defined outcome was biochemically verified 6-month prolonged abstinence (from 3-9 months, with a secondary endpoint also considering abstinence between 9 and 15 months). Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 12-month prolonged abstinence and point prevalent biochemically verified and self-reported abstinence, quit attempts, number of cigarettes smoked, pharmacological aids used, SF12, EQ-5D and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at 3 and 9 months. Intervention costs were assessed for a cost-effectiveness analysis. FINDINGS: Assuming missing data at follow-up implied continued smoking, nine (2.0%) intervention participants and four (0.9%) SAU participants achieved the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-7.56, P = 0.169). At 3 and 9 months, the proportions self-reporting reducing cigarettes smoked from baseline by ≥50%, for intervention versus SAU, were 18.9% versus 10.5% (P = 0.009) and 14.4% versus 10% (P = 0.044), respectively. Mean difference in weekly MVPA at 3 months was 81.6 minutes in favour of the intervention group (95% CI = 28.75, 134.47: P = 0.003), but there was no significant difference at 9 months (23.70, 95% CI = -33.07, 80.47: P = 0.143). Changes in MVPA did not mediate changes in smoking outcomes. The intervention cost was £239.18 per person, with no evidence of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: For United Kingdom smokers wanting to reduce but not quit smoking, behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity improved some short-term smoking cessation and reduction outcomes and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but had no long-term effects on smoking cessation or physical activity.

Randomised controlled trial of tailored support to increase physical activity and reduce smoking in smokers not immediately ready to quit: protocol for the Trial of physical Activity-assisted Reduction of Smoking (TARS) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking reduction can lead to increased success in quitting. This study aims to determine if a client-focused motivational support package for smoking reduction (and quitting) and increasing (or otherwise using) physical activity (PA) can help smokers who do not wish to quit immediately to reduce the amount they smoke, and ultimately quit. This paper reports the study design and methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, multicentred, parallel, two group, randomised controlled superiority clinical trial, with embedded process evaluation and economics evaluation. Participants who wished to reduce smoking with no immediate plans to quit were randomised 1:1 to receive either (1) tailored individual health trainer face-to-face and/or telephone support to reduce smoking and increase PA as an aid to smoking reduction (intervention) or (2) brief written/electronic advice to reduce or quit smoking (control). Participants in both arms of the trial were also signposted to usual local support for smoking reduction and quitting. The primary outcome measure is 6-month carbon monoxide-confirmed floating prolonged abstinence following participant self-reported quitting on a mailed questionnaire at 3 and 9 months post-baseline. Participants confirmed as abstinent at 9 months will be followed up at 15 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by SW Bristol National Health Service Research Committee (17/SW/0223). Dissemination will include publication of findings for the stated outcomes, parallel process evaluation and economic evaluation in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be disseminated to trial participants and healthcare providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47776579; Pre-results.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I2 = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I2 = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I2 = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I2 = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I2 = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.

Health trainer-led motivational intervention plus usual care for people under community supervision compared with usual care alone: a study protocol for a parallel-group pilot randomised controlled trial (STRENGTHEN).

INTRODUCTION: People with experience of the criminal justice system typically have worse physical and mental health, lower levels of mental well-being and have less healthy lifestyles than the general population. Health trainers have worked with offenders in the community to provide support for lifestyle change, enhance mental well-being and signpost to appropriate services. There has been no rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing such community support. This study aims to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised trial and delivering a health trainer intervention to people receiving community supervision in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, parallel, two-group randomised controlled trial recruiting 120 participants with 1:1 individual allocation to receive support from a health trainer and usual care or usual care alone, with mixed methods process evaluation. Participants receive community supervision from an offender manager in either a Community Rehabilitation Company or the National Probation Service. If they have served a custodial sentence, then they have to have been released for at least 2 months. The supervision period must have at least 7 months left at recruitment. Participants are interested in receiving support to change diet, physical activity, alcohol use and smoking and/or improve mental well-being. The primary outcome is mental well-being with secondary outcomes related to smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption and diet. The primary outcome will inform sample size calculations for a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Health and Care Research Wales Ethics Committee (REC reference 16/WA/0171). Dissemination will include publication of the intervention development process and findings for the stated outcomes, parallel process evaluation and economic evaluation in peer-reviewed journals. Results will also be disseminated to stakeholders and trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN80475744; Pre-results.

Intervention delivery fidelity assessment of a counseling-based intervention for promoting smoking reduction and increasing physical activity.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) develop an approach to assess the delivery fidelity of a complex intervention to simultaneously increase physical activity and reduce smoking and (2) use this approach to assess the variation of fidelity across the delivery of different intervention components of the intervention. METHOD: Audio recorded and transcribed sessions (90 in total) involving 30 participants and 3 health trainers delivering a one-to-one intervention were purposively sampled across health trainer (HT) and stage of treatment. The Dreyfus system for skill acquisition informed a scoring system based on 12 intervention processes and applied by three experts in health behavior change. Scores ranged from 0 to 2 (poor quality), 3 to 4 (reasonable quality), and 5 to 6 (expert level quality). Scores were averaged across coders and presented in relation to fidelity of both HT and the intervention component. RESULTS: The methods were successfully applied with recommendations for future application. Average scores for each item by each coder differed by up to +0.7 to -0.9 points indicating reasonable agreement. Mean scores for the three HTs were 2.9, 2.2, and 2.4, across all 12 intervention processes. The delivery of all intervention components for physical activity was scored lower (<3) than their respective counterparts for smoking reduction (>3; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Novel methods for assessing delivery fidelity were successfully applied and areas for improvement identified. Delivery fidelity was deemed to be of reasonable quality but was higher for smoking related intervention components over physical activity ones. (PsycINFO Database Record

Physical activity and the prevention, reduction, and treatment of alcohol and/or substance use across the lifespan (The PHASE review): protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and substance use results in significant human and economic cost globally and is associated with economic costs of £21 billion and £15billion within the UK, respectively, and trends for use are not improving. Pharmacological interventions are well researched, but relapse rates across interventions for substance and alcohol use disorders are as high as 60-90%. Physical activity may offer an alternative or adjunct approach to reducing rates of alcohol and substance use that is associated with few adverse side effects, is easily accessible, and is potentially cost-effective. Through psychological, behavioural, and physiological mechanisms, physical activity may offer benefits in the prevention, reduction, and treatment of alcohol and substance use across the lifespan. Whilst physical activity is widely advocated as offering benefit, no systematic review exists of physical activity (in all forms) and its effects on all levels of alcohol and substance use across all ages to help inform policymakers, service providers, and commissioners. METHODS: The objectives of this mixed methods systematic review are to describe and evaluate the quantitative and qualitative research obtained by a diverse search strategy on the impact of physical activity and its potential to: 1. Reduce the risk of progression to alcohol and/or substance use (PREVENTION) 2. Support individuals to reduce alcohol and/or substance use for harm reduction (REDUCTION), and 3. Promote abstinence and relapse prevention during and after treatment for an alcohol and/or substance use disorder (TREATMENT). With the input of key stakeholders, we aim to assess how what we know can be translated into policy and practice. Quantitative, qualitative, service evaluations, and economic analyses will be brought together in a final narrative synthesis that will describe the potential benefits of physical activity for whom, in what conditions, and in what form. DISCUSSION: This review will provide details of what is known about physical activity and the prevention, reduction, and treatment of alcohol and/or substance use. The synthesised findings will be disseminated to policymakers, service providers, and commissioners in the UK. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number: CRD42017079322 .

Lessons learned from recruiting socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers into a pilot randomized controlled trial to explore the role of Exercise Assisted Reduction then Stop (EARS) smoking.

BACKGROUND: Research is needed on what influences recruitment to smoking reduction trials, and how to increase their reach. The present study aimed to i) assess the feasibility of recruiting a disadvantaged population, ii) examine the effects of recruitment methods on participant characteristics, iii) identify resource requirements for different recruitment methods, and iv) to qualitatively assess the acceptability of recruitment. This was done as part of a pilot two-arm trial of the effectiveness of a novel behavioral support intervention focused on increasing physical activity and reducing smoking, among disadvantaged smokers not wishing to quit. METHODS: Smokers were recruited through mailed invitations from three primary care practices (62 participants) and one National Health Stop Smoking Service (SSS) database (31 participants). Six other participants were recruited via a variety of other community-based approaches. Data were collected through questionnaires, field notes, work sampling, and databases. Chi-squared and t-tests were used to compare baseline characteristics of participants. RESULTS: We randomized between 5.1 and 11.1% of those invited through primary care and SSS, with associated researcher time to recruit one participant varying from 18 to 157 minutes depending on time and intensity invested.Only six participants were recruited through a wide variety of other community-based approaches, with an associated researcher time of 469 minutes to recruit one participant. Targets for recruiting a disadvantaged population were met, with 91% of the sample in social classes C2 to E (NRS social grades, UK), and 41% indicating mental health problems. Those recruited from SSS were more likely to respond to an initial letter, had used cessation aids before, and had attempted to quit in the past year. Overall, initial responders were more likely to be physically active than those who were recruited via follow-up telephone calls. No other demographics or behaviour characteristics were associated with recruitment approach or intensity of effort. Qualitative feedback indicated that participants had been attracted by the prospect of support that focused on smoking reduction rather than abrupt quitting. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed invitations, and follow-up, from health professionals was an effective method of recruiting disadvantaged smokers into a trial of an exercise intervention to aid smoking reduction. Recruitment via community outreach approaches was largely ineffective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN identifier: 13837944 , registered on 6 July 2010.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to quit smoking. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not motivational interviewing (MI) promotes smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. Date of the most recent search: August 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which motivational interviewing or its variants were offered to tobacco users to assist cessation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. We counted participants lost to follow-up as continuing smoking or relapsed. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 28 studies published between 1997 and 2014, involving over 16,000 participants. MI was conducted in one to six sessions, with the duration of each session ranging from 10 to 60 minutes. Interventions were delivered by primary care physicians, hospital clinicians, nurses or counsellors. Our meta-analysis of MI versus brief advice or usual care yielded a modest but significant increase in quitting (risk ratio (RR) 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 1.36; 28 studies; N = 16,803). Subgroup analyses found that MI delivered by primary care physicians resulted in an RR of 3.49 (95% CI 1.53 to 7.94; 2 trials; N = 736). When delivered by counsellors the RR was smaller (1.25; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63; 22 trials; N = 13,593) but MI still resulted in higher quit rates than brief advice or usual care. When we compared MI interventions conducted through shorter sessions (less than 20 minutes per session) to controls, this resulted in an RR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.12; 9 trials; N = 3651). Single-session treatments might increase the likelihood of quitting over multiple sessions, but both regimens produced positive outcomes. Evidence is unclear at present on the optimal number of follow-up calls.There was variation across the trials in treatment fidelity. All trials used some variant of motivational interviewing. Critical details in how it was modified for the particular study population, the training of therapists and the content of the counselling were sometimes lacking from trial reports.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Motivational interviewing may assist people to quit smoking. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, due to variations in study quality, treatment fidelity, between-study heterogeneity and the possibility of publication or selective reporting bias.

A pilot randomised trial to assess the methods and procedures for evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Exercise Assisted Reduction then Stop (EARS) among disadvantaged smokers.

BACKGROUND: There have been few rigorous studies on the effects of behavioural support for helping smokers to reduce who do not immediately wish to quit. While reduction may not have the health benefits of quitting, it may lead smokers to want to quit. Physical activity (PA) helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and also reduces weight gain after quitting, but smokers may be less inclined to exercise. There is scope to develop and determine the effectiveness of interventions to support smoking reduction and increase physical activity, for those not ready to quit. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) [Exercise Assisted Reduction then Stop (EARS) smoking study] to (1) design and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a PA and smoking-reduction counselling intervention [for disadvantaged smokers who do not wish to quit but do want to reduce their smoking (to increase the likelihood of quitting)], and (2) to inform the design of a large RCT to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. DESIGN: A single-centre, pragmatic, pilot trial with follow-up up to 16 weeks. A mixed methods approach assessed the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and trial methods. Smokers were individually randomised to intervention or control arms. SETTING: General practices, NHS buildings, community venues, and the Stop Smoking Service (SSS) within Plymouth, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Aged > 18 years, smoking ≥ 10 cigarettes per day (for ≥ 2 years) who wished to cut down. We excluded individuals who were contraindicated for moderate PA, posed a safety risk to the research team, wished to quit immediately or use Nicotine Replacement Therapy, not registered with a general practitioner, or did not converse in English. INTERVENTION: We designed a client-centred, counselling-based intervention designed to support smoking reduction and increases in PA. Support sessions were delivered by trained counsellors either face to face or by telephone. Both intervention and control arms were given information at baseline on specialist SSS support available should they have wished to quit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 4-week post-quit expired air carbon monoxide (CO)-confirmed abstinence from smoking. Secondary outcomes included validated behavioural, cognitive and emotional/affective and health-related quality of life measures and treatment costs. RESULTS: The study randomised 99 participants, 49 to the intervention arm and 50 to the control arm, with a 62% follow-up rate at 16 weeks. In the intervention and control arms, 14% versus 4%, respectively [relative risk = 3.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 16.35], had expired CO-confirmed abstinence at least 4 and up to 8 weeks after quit day; 22% versus 6% (relative risk = 3.74; 95% CI 1.11 to 12.60) made a quit attempt; 10% versus 4% (relative risk = 92.55; 95% CI 0.52 to 12.53) achieved point-prevalent abstinence at 16 weeks; and 39% versus 20% (relative risk = 1.94; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.74) achieved at least a 50% reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked daily. The percentage reporting using PA for controlling smoking in the intervention versus control arms was 55% versus 22%, respectively at 8 weeks and 37% versus 16%, respectively, at 16 weeks. The counsellors generally delivered the intervention as planned and participants responded with a variety of smoking reduction strategies, sometimes supported by changes in PA. The intervention costs were approximately £192 per participant. Exploratory cost-effectiveness modelling indicates that the intervention may be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The study provided valuable information on the resources needed to improve study recruitment and retention. Offering support for smoking reduction and PA appears to have value in promoting reduction and cessation in disadvantaged smokers not currently motivated to quit. A large RCT is needed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 13837944. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 18, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.