Pritchard 1999.

Study characteristics
Methods	Nutritional counselling in general practice: a cost effective analysis RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) The study was conducted in a university group general practice set in a lower socioeconomic outer suburb of Perth, Western Australia. 2) Intervention delivered by a doctor and a dietitian or only by a dietitian. In Australia. 3 arms: 1. Control (usual care) (control arm) and 2. Intervention 1 (dietitian counselling group) (intervention arm), 3. Intervention 2 (doctor/dietitian counselling group) (other arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 6 Intervention arm N: 5, 6, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: NR ± NR % Male: NR Longest follow‐up: 12 months
Interventions	Control arm: (usual care) Intervention arm: (dietitian counselling group) 1) Case management 2) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (doctor/dietitian counselling group) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Facilitated relay of clinical information 4) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	The research was funded by a grant from the Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The study dietitian used a table of random numbers to allocate each consecutive patient with a diagnosis of one or more of overweight, hypertension and type 2 diabetes to one of the 3 groups.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	No data just for patients with diabetes. There was no significant difference between intervention and control groups with respect to sex or age. There was no significant difference between the groups by socioeconomic status quartiles or occupation. No significant differences were found between the 3 groups in the frequency of diagnoses.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. Outcomes balanced between groups.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Table 2. Among type 2 diabetes patients, 3 patients did not complete the study out of 17 (17.6%), 2 out of 5 in the dietitian group (40%) and 1 out of 6 in the doctor/dietitian group (16.7%).
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Our outcome of interest was objectively assessed (HbA1c).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	No registered protocol. No data on blood pressure only in patients with diabetes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	The control group received the results of the initial measurements. Since doctors are involved in one of the 2 intervention groups, they may have changed their approach with their patients in the 2 other groups, including the control group.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias.