Anderson‐Loftin 2005.

Study characteristics
Methods	Soul food light: culturally competent diabetes education RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) conducted at a diabetes education centre in a rural SC county 2) Educational classes were taught by a local registered dietician with experience in nutrition therapy for rural black southerners with diabetes. Peer‐professional discussion groups began 1 month after educational classes and were facilitated by a nurse case manager who was certified as a diabetes educator in United States of America 2 arms: 1) Control (usual care) (control arm) and 2) Intervention (dietary self‐management behavioural intervention) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 48 Intervention arm N: 49, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 57.32 ± 10.62 % Male: 21.65 Longest follow‐up: 12 months
Interventions	Control arm: (usual care) 1) Patient education Intervention arm: (dietary self‐management behavioural intervention) 1) Case management 2) Patient education
Outcomes	1) Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	This study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research (1R15NR/DK07651‐01)
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were randomly assigned to experimental or control groups by the principal investigator based on a computer‐generated table of random numbers.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	The RA who assigned participants identification numbers was blinded to group assignment.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "Significant differences in duration of diabetes were found between groups at baseline (Table 1). Gender and 3 categories of medication (oral hypoglycaemic agents, insulin, and lipid‐reducing medications) were significant for at least 1 dependent variable. "
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	High risk	See Table 1, differences between groups for HbA1c, LDL, triglycerides.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Retention in the experimental group was 78% and 56% in the control group; 32 participants (33%) were lost to attrition. Significant differences (P = 0.03) in attrition between experimental and control groups were observed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective measure for HbA1c.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol registered. Methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Patient randomised. Interaction between groups may have occurred.
Other bias	Low risk	None identified.