McKay 2002.

Study characteristics
Methods	Internet‐based diabetes self‐management and support: initial outcomes from the Diabetes Network project RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Primary care practices, United States of America. Home‐based study via Internet‐mediated support and feedback. 2) Internet‐mediated access to a professional who had expertise in providing dietary advice to diabetes patients. Participants worked with their coach and interactive resources on the website to reach their dietary goals. Peer‐directed (but professionally monitored) forum for participants to interact with one another. In United States of America. 4 arms: 1. Control (information‐only condition (IOC)) (control arm) and 2. Intervention 1: (personalised self‐management coach condition (PSMCC)) (intervention arm), 3. Intervention 2: (peer support condition (PSC)) (other arm)4. Intervention 3: (combined condition (CC)) (other arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 40 Intervention arm N: 40, 40, 40 Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 59.53 ± 11.05 % Male: 46.88 Longest follow‐up: 13 months
Interventions	Control arm: (information‐only condition (IOC)) 1) Patient education Intervention arm: (personalised self‐management coach condition (PSMCC)) 1) Case management 2) Electronic patient registry 3) Patient education 4) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (peer support condition (PSC)) 1) Patient education 2) 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)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. There were no statistically significant between‐conditions differences at Time 1 for any of these variables
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Table 2. No P values provided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Of the 160 participants randomised (40 to each condition), 16% failed to complete the 3‐month (T2) assessment procedures that measured total cholesterol. The 4 conditions did not significantly differ in their number of missing cases (7 in the IOC, 10 in the PSC, 3 the PSMCC, and 7 in the CC). The number lost is unbalanced between the arms (17.5%, 25%, 7.5%, 17.5%).
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 registered protocol; methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Patient randomised. Unclear whether groups may have had access to the resources of other groups.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Participants had low HbA1C even at baseline. The follow‐up period was very short.