Basak 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Health promotion for patients with diabetes: health coaching or formal health education? Patient RCT, conducted in outpatient clinics of 2 hospitals in Istanbul, Turkey Two arms: 1) Formal health education (control arm) and 2) Health coaching (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 114 Intervention arm N: 83 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: NR ± NR % Male: NR Longest follow‐up: 16 months
Interventions	Control arm: 1) Case management 2) Patient education Intervention arm: 1) Case management 2) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	1) Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	The research is part of an international project that has two phases. The Turkish phase is presented here and is supported by FDI, and the International Research Fund of University of Copenhagen.
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not provided in Table 1; they provide proportions.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	~11% lost to follow‐up in control; ~9% lost to follow‐up in intervention; numbers lost and reasons were balanced at first follow‐up, but more losses in control group during second follow‐up.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Primary outcome: glycaemic control and oral health: how HbA1c was measured was not reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	< 2005 approach used since no protocol; methods match results.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	One dentist provided the health education group (control), less likely for contamination.
Other bias	Low risk	Information not available.