Dale 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Telephone peer‐delivered intervention for diabetes motivation and support: the telecare exploratory RCT Patient RCT, conducted in general practice clinics in central England, United Kingdom Three arms: 1. Control group (control arm), 2. Peer support (intervention arm 1) and 3. Diabetes specialist nurse (intervention arm 2)
Participants	Control arm N: 97 Intervention arm 1 N: 90 Intervention arm 2 N: 44 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: NR ± NR % Male: 57.4 Longest follow‐up: 6 months
Interventions	Control arm: None Intervention arm 1: 1) Case management 2) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm 2: 1) Case management 2) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	1) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 8.7 (1.3), post 7.9 (1.1) Intervention arm 1: pre 8.4 (1.1), post 8.0 (1.5) Intervention arm 2: pre 8.9 (1.5), post 7.9 (0.9)
Funding source	We are grateful to the BUPA Foundation for its funding of this study
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information not available.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Information not available.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	High risk	Information not available.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Information not available
Other bias	Low risk	Information not available.