Garcia 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Home‐based diabetes symptom self‐management education for Mexican Americans with type 2 diabetes RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) The study was set in urban and rural communities in Central Texas where Hispanics comprise 34% of the population. 2) Participants in the experimental condition received 8 weekly in‐home, interactive, one‐on‐one educational and behaviour modification sessions with a bilingual registered nurse (RN) in United States of America 2 arms: 1. Control (wait‐listed control) group (control arm) and 2. Intervention (symptom‐based diabetes self‐management education (DSME) programme) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 37 Intervention arm N: 41, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 49.6 ± 9.33 % Male: 33.33 Longest follow‐up: 6 months
Interventions	Control arm: (wait‐listed control) Intervention arm: (symptom‐based diabetes self‐management education (DSME) programme) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Patient education 4) Promotion of self‐management 5) Patient reminders
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin Systolic blood pressure Diastolic blood pressure Low‐density lipoprotein
Funding source	National Institute of Diabetes and Kidney and Digestive Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (R21DK076705)
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Participants were randomly assigned to the experimental (symptom‐based diabetes self‐management education (DSME) programme) or the wait‐listed control group (WLC).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 2 ‐ all P values greater than 0.05.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	High risk	Table 2 ‐ fasting blood glucose and HbA1c levels were significantly different between control and experimental group at baseline.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Large dropout. 27% loss in control group, 28% loss in experimental group. The authors do not provide reasons for the loss (they just mention what they think might have happened).
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective measures for HbA1c, SBP, DBP, LDL.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol registered. No discrepancy between methods and outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	The participants in the intervention arm were followed by RNs, so contamination seems unlikely.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias.