Heisler 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Comparison of community health worker‐led diabetes medication decision‐making support for low‐income Latino and African American adults with diabetes using e‐health tools versus print materials Patient RCT, conducted in a community health centre in Detroit, serving Latino and African American low‐income, USA Two arms: 1. Print materials (control arm) and 2. iDecide (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 95 Intervention arm N: 93 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: NR ± NR % Male: NR Longest follow‐up: 3 months
Interventions	Control arm: 1) Case management 2) Patient education 3) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: 1) Case management 2) Patient education 3) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	1) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 8.3 (2.2), post 7.9 (1.9) Intervention arm: pre 8.2 (1.9), post 7.8 (1.7)
Funding source	Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomly assigned by a computer program, through use of a random‐sequence algorithm, into 1 of 2 study groups.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Web‐based (central allocation).
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	Education (P < 0.001), difficulty with written info (P = 0.03), confident completing forms (P = 0.003).
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Secondary outcome: HbA1c (P = 0.58).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	~6% lost in both arms, reasons provided and seem balanced.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Secondary outcome: HbA1c, used objective laboratory methods, measured using Bayer DCA2000+ point of care analyser.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Matches protocol.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	High risk	Same community centre, with community health workers (CHWs) providing intervention and control, possible contamination?
Other bias	Low risk	Information not available.