24 25 The aim of the current systematic review is to build on Michie et al’s23 work by (A)

providing an updated review including studies published since 2006, (B) including only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and (C) applying meta-analysis to estimate intervention effect sizes. We investigated whether studies of interventions targeted at participants from low-income groups LCL161? are effective in changing diet, physical activity or smoking behaviour. Methods Eligibility criteria A protocol for this review is not publicly available; however, this article does reflect the relevant components of the PRISMA checklist for the reporting of systematic reviews. The article was submitted with a copy of the checklist confirming this. Studies included in this review had to meet the following inclusion criteria: Population: Adults aged 18 years and over, of low income and from the general population. Studies were considered to target a low-income group if they explicitly referred to their participants as ‘low income’. General population was defined

as not belonging to a specific clinical group, such as those with diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Pregnant and overweight individuals were not considered to belong to a clinical group and were therefore included. Interventions: Interventions targeting a change in smoking, eating and/or physical activity behaviours. Studies could target a single behaviour or multiple behaviours in any combination. Study design: Published RCTs and cluster RCTs (cRCTs). Control condition could be no intervention, a less intense intervention or an intervention with different content. Outcomes: Behavioural outcomes relevant to smoking cessation, healthy eating and physical activity

with no restrictions on length of follow-up. Self-reported individual-level behaviour, more ‘objective’ measures of behaviour and measures of behavioural change were all included, as in Michie et al.23 Studies were excluded if reported data were unsuitable for meta-analysis. Date: 1995–2014: Studies published from 1995 to 2006 were identified by screening Michie et al,23 the primary search included studies published between January 2006 and July 2014. We chose to focus on studies published within the previous two decades to ensure Carfilzomib relevance to current financial, social, health and healthcare climates. Language: English language: in line with Michie et al’s23 review. Search strategy We used studies from 1995 to 2006 which had been identified by Michie et al’s23 review rather than running the search again because the previous review’s search criteria were similar but broader than our own and should therefore include all articles relevant to the current review. Specific search strategies were created (see online supplementary file 1) to search for studies published since Michie et al’s23 review of 1995–2006 papers.