Bohingamu 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Personalised telehealth intervention for chronic disease management: a pilot randomised controlled trial RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Barwon Health, University Hospital Geelong, Geelong, Australia. 2) The Barwon Health personalised telehealth monitoring programme was staffed during office hours 7 days a week by registered nurses with skills in the management of diabetes, respiratory conditions and community nursing and Lead medical consultants (respiratory and diabetes) for each patient cohort were chosen from senior medical staff of University Hospital Geelong in Australia 2 arms: 1) Control (usual care) (control arm) and 2) Intervention (personalised telehealth monitoring programme) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 69 Intervention arm N: 67, NA, NA Diabetes type: 4 Mean age: 70.42 ± 9.6 % Male: 53.54 Longest follow‐up: 12 months
Interventions	Control arm: (usual care) Intervention arm: (personalised telehealth monitoring program) 1) Case management 2) Electronic patient registry 3) Facilitated relay of clinical information 4) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Victorian Government provided funding for the pilot project, with an in‐kind contribution by Barwon Health
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Participants who met inclusion criteria and agreed to participate were randomised to the intervention or control groups using sequential envelopes.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Participants who met inclusion criteria and agreed to participate were randomised to the intervention or control groups using sequential envelopes; no mention of whether envelopes were opaque.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	See Table 2. P values > 0.05.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	High risk	Table 2. P values provided and below 0.05 for HbA1c.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Unclear risk	12/85 (14%) lost in control, 10/86 (12%) lost in intervention group. Balanced and reasons provided.
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	Retrospectively registered protocol. Methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Patient‐randomised. Unlikely that control patients received the remote telehealth intervention.
Other bias	High risk	Inadvertently, additional patients were randomised to either intervention or control groups who did not meet the original inclusion criteria (PRaDA score); however, if results were affected, they are likely to be a conservative estimate, as the mean PRaDA score at baseline for the control group was lower than the intervention group, suggesting a lower probability of hospital readmission in the control group.