N Nu ur rs se e--c co on nd du uc ct te ed d s sm mo ok ki in ng g c ce es ss sa at ti io on n w wi it th h m mi in ni im ma al l i in nt te er r--v ve en nt ti io on n i in n a a l lu un ng g c cl li in ni ic c: : a a r ra an nd do om mi iz ze ed d c co on nt tr ro ol ll le ed d s st tu ud dy y Subjects who smoked less than 10 cigarettes·day -1 , and subjects who smoked ≥10 cigarettes·day -1 and who had refused to participate in a smoking cessation trial with nicotine replacement therapy, were randomly allocated to a motivational approach to smoking cessation or to a control group. The motivational approach consisted of a nurse-conducted 5 min consultation concerning reasons to quit smoking, brochures about smoking cessation and advice about how to quit. After 4-6 weeks, subjects in the motivational group received a letter encouraging them to quit smoking. After 1 year, all subjects were contacted by phone and smoking status reported. Subjects claiming to be abstinent attended the clinic for carbon monoxide verification.A total of 507 subjects were enrolled, 254 in the motivational group and 253 in the control group. The mean age of the motivational group was 51 yrs, 50% were males and they smoked a mean of 13 cigarettes·day -1 . The mean age of the control group was 53 yrs, 61% were males and they smoked a mean of 12 cigarettes·day -1 . At the 1 year follow-up, the success rate for point prevalence (no smoking at 1 year and during the preceding month) was 8, 7% in the motivational group versus 3.6% in the control group (p=0.025). The 12 months sustained success rate (no smoking at all during the year) was 3.1 versus 1.2% (p=0.22). The point prevalence for light smokers (<10 cigarettes·day -1 ) was 13.9% in the motivational group versus 6.3% in control group (p=0.12), and for heavy smokers (10 or more cigarettes·day -1 ) 5.2% versus 1.9% (p=0.20).In conclusion, the effect of this nurse-conducted, minimal intervention, motivational approach seems promising as the quit rate at 1 year follow-up had doubled.