Cohen 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Pharmacist‐led telehealth disease management for patients with diabetes and depression RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Providence VA Medical Center, Providence RI. Remote Teleheath study. 2) Pharmacists in United States of America 2 arms: 1) Control (nurse‐led telehealth/usual care) (control arm) and 2) Intervention (pharmacist‐led telehealth) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 15 Intervention arm N: 15, NA, NA Diabetes type: 3 Mean age: 61.8 ± 9.6 % Male: 93.35 Longest follow‐up: 6 months
Interventions	Control arm: (nurse‐led telehealth/usual care) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Electronic patient registry 4) Clinician reminder 5) Facilitated relay of clinical information 6) Promotion of self‐management 7) Patient reminders Intervention arm: (pharmacist‐led telehealth) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Electronic patient registry 4) Clinician reminder 5) Facilitated relay of clinical information 6) Patient education Promotion of self‐management 7) Patient reminders
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: this work was supported by the Federal Services Junior Investigator Research Grant Program – American Health‐System Pharmacy
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were assigned to the pharmacist‐led telehealth arm or the usual care with nurse‐led telehealth arm via a coin toss.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Coin toss. No way to manipulate.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. P values greater than 0.05.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	High risk	Table 1. BP measurements significantly different; HbA1c was P = 0.05.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	1 lost in control, 2 lost in intervention.
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 published protocol; methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Nurses and pharmacists worked in the same clinic together.
Other bias	Unclear risk	The depression scoring system used was changed midway through the study. The study initially used PHQ‐9, but was modified and changed to the CES‐D scale to capture depression changes more easily. This resulted in less comparable depression scores in each group.