Li 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Impact of "Conversation Maps" on diabetes distress and self‐efficacy of Chinese adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Department of Health Education, Jiangsu Province Hospital on Integration of Chinese and Western Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China 2) a trained diabetes educator took on the role as the facilitator of Diabetes Conversation Map in China 2 arms: 1. Control (traditional education) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (Diabetes Conversation Maps‐based education) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 26 Intervention arm N: 27, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 62.4 ± 9.85 % Male: 53.4 Longest follow‐up: 7 months
Interventions	Control arm: (traditional education) 1) Patient education Intervention arm: (Diabetes Conversation Maps‐based education) 1) Case management 2) Patient education 3) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	Not reported
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was performed by computer‐generated random numbers.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Group assignments were delivered in sealed, opaque envelopes generated by off‐site study staff.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1 ‐ P values provided and all greater than 0.05.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1 ‐ P values provided and all greater than 0.05.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	Borderline. 4 lost to control (15%), 3 lost in intervention (11%). Reasons for loss provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective measure for HbA1c.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol registered. Methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Patient‐randomised. Same educator provided educational sessions for both groups.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias.