Babamoto 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Improving diabetes care and health measures among Hispanics using community health workers: results from a randomized controlled trial RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Participants were recruited during routine clinic visits at 3 inner‐city family health centres in Los Angeles. For patients in CHW arm, sessions were conducted in accessible community locations, at the clinic, or in the patient’s home. They also received follow‐up calls. Patients in the case management arm were usually seen in the clinic and also had follow‐up calls. 2) Community health workers (CHW arm) and nurses (case management arm) provided the interventions. In United States of America. 3 arms: 1) Control (standard provider care) (control arm), 2) Intervention 1 (community health workers) (intervention arm) and 3) Intervention 2 (case management by nurses) (other arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 54 Intervention arm N: 75, 60, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 50 ± 13.66 % Male: 36 Longest follow‐up: 6 months
Interventions	Control arm: (standard provider care) 1) Patient education Intervention arm: (community health workers) 1) Case management 2) Patient education 3) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (case management by nurses) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Patient education 4) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	1) Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	Project funding was provided by the Pfizer Foundation and Pfizer Health Solutions Inc.
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The final study sample consisted of 318 (or 189?) patients randomly assigned to the 3 study arms via a random‐number table.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	There were no significant differences across study groups with respect to age, education and household income; however, when compared with the other groups, the standard provider care group had a greater proportion of females, and the case management group had a greater proportion of patients whose parents had diabetes.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Baseline clinical indicators and self‐reported health measures indicated a population characterised by poor dietary and exercise habits, as well as poor medication‐taking behaviour, with no significant differences at baseline across study groups (Table 2).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Loss to follow‐up was greatest in the standard provider care group. Significantly greater proportions of patients enrolled in the standard provider care group (50%) and the case management group (43%) were lost to follow‐up, as compared with the CHW group (28%, P < 0.05). With respect to age and annual income, no significant differences were observed between programme graduates and those who disenrolled.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective outcome (HbA1c).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No registered protocol or previously published protocol. Data match methods.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	The standard provider care group, as well as the other randomised groups, may have received higher levels of care during the study period than what they would have normally received in the absence of the intervention. Before study activities began, clinic providers received information about the study objectives... It is conceivable that awareness of the study among clinic providers may have motivated them to be more diligent about the services they offered to study patients.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias.