Sheikh 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: Randomized controlled trial Country: Zambia Setting: Hospital Eligibility criteria: Included were individuals who met DSM‐IV‐TR criteria for alcohol dependence and were admitted to a hospital with primary alcohol problems Duration of follow‐up: 8‐weeks Informed consent: All participants provided consent Ethical approvals: Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zambia
Participants	Sample size: 114 (58 intervention, 56 control) Description of the target population: Patients seeking treatment for alcohol problems at a hospital Age: Mean=32 years, Range=18‐65 years Sex: 3.5% female Race/Ethnicity: Not reported Marital status: 30% married Harmful alcohol use (baseline): All scored >15 on the AUDIT Co‐occurring disorders: Not reported
Interventions	Type: Non‐pharmacologic Description: Family‐based brief relapse prevention intervention from mhGAP with involvement from a close family member following detoxification with diazepam and vitamin supplementation. The brief relapse prevention intervention included discussion of alcohol‐related problems, attitudes toward alcohol and the problems it has caused, actively educating and involving the family, and self‐help groups. Duration and frequency: One 20‐minute interview with the patient and family member Delivery and provider: Psychosocial counselor Comparison group: Detoxification only with diazepam and vitamin supplementation
Outcomes	Primary outcome(s): Hazardous alcohol use Primary outcome measurement tool(s): AUDIT‐C and questions about drinking habits Secondary outcome(s): Time to first drink Secondary outcome measurement tool(s): AUDIT‐C and questions about drinking habits Time points: 0‐, 8‐weeks
Notes	Study funding and conflicts of interest: Not reported Linked study records: None
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Randomization and statistical analyses were performed using sealed envelopes containing patient assignment devised from the randomization facility of the statistics program, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20." Pg. 114
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"sealed envelopes containing patient assignment" Pg. 114
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel cannot be blinded for this type of intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Outcomes reported by participant not blind to intervention
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"All 114 consecutive admissions with primary alcohol problems agreed to take part, and follow‐up information was obtained for all participants at 8 weeks (refusal rate 0%; follow‐up rate 100%)." Pg. 115
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available