Islam 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	A culturally tailored community health worker intervention leads to improvement in patient‐centered outcomes for immigrant patients with type 2 diabetes RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) All intervention sessions and materials were delivered in Bengali and held in clinical and community settings, New York City, United States, 2) Community health worker‐led patient‐centred lifestyle on type 2 diabetes management among Bangladeshis in NYC in United States of America 2 arms: 1. Control (usual care + 1 education session) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (community health worker) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 160 Intervention arm N: 176, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 54.87 ± 9.71 % Male: 59.84 Longest follow‐up: 6 months
Interventions	Control arm: (usual care + 1 education session) 1) Patient education Intervention arm: (community health worker) 1) Case management 2) Patient education 3) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin Systolic blood pressure Diastolic blood pressure Low‐density lipoprotein
Funding source	This publication was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) grants P60MD000538 and U54MD000538; NIH National Center for the Advancement of Translational Science (NCATS) Grant UL1TR001445; NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) grant R01DK110048; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Grant U48DP001904 and U58DP005621
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomised to either the intervention or control group using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, versions 21.0 and 22.0.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	There were no statistically significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics between the groups at baseline; however, control group participants were significantly more likely than intervention group participants to report more frequent vigorous weekly physical activity and total weekly physical activity (Table 1).
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	High risk	Table 1 ‐ all outcomes of interest P > 0.05, however in limitations authors say that variables were shown to differ between groups at baseline (e.g. A1C, physical activity and years with diabetes).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Among intervention group participants 31 (18%) were lost to follow‐up, whereas among control group participants 14 (9%) were lost to follow‐up.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objectively measured outcomes: HbA1c, BP, LDL.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Some differences between protocol and publication: protocol does not mention BP, publication does not report social support, utilisation of healthcare. Published protocol said there would be 12‐month follow‐up, which is not presented in results.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Control group had first session delivered as intervention group, but likely no other communication with CHWs delivering intervention.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias.