Kong 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Effectiveness of the chronic care model in type 2 diabetes management in a community health service center in china: a group randomized experimental study Clustered RCT (12 clusters and NR providers), conducted in 1) Zhaohui Community Health Service Center in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, China. The community health service centre covers 12 communities with a geographic area of 3.03 square kilometres. 2) Each team included a responsible physician, a health manager and a public health assistant. In China. 2 arms: 1. Control (conventional care) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (chronic care model) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 150 Intervention arm N: 150, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 70.25 ± 11 % Male: 42.62 Longest follow‐up: 9 months
Interventions	Control arm: (conventional care) 1) Clinician reminder Intervention arm: (chronic care model) 1) Team change 2) Electronic patient registry 3) Clinician education 4) Clinician reminder 5) Facilitated relay of clinical information 6) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin Systolic blood pressure Diastolic blood pressure Low‐density lipoprotein
Funding source	This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (number: 70603024), the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation (number: LY16G030005) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Cluster‐RCT, community allocation.
Provider's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	Table 1. P values for diabetes duration and marital status were less than 0.05. Age had a P value of 0.05 between groups.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. P values provided and greater than 0.05.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	Figure 1. 12/136 lost in control group, 8/142 lost in intervention group. No reasons for loss provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective measure for HbA1c, BP, LDL.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No registered protocol. Methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Cluster‐randomised. Community allocated.
Other bias	Low risk	None identified.