Fuller 2007.

Methods	Study design: controlled before‐after study Sampling frame: participants in pre‐existing studies of injection drug users (IDUs) Sampling method: convenience sample; participants were recruited at community research sites within target community using targeted and respondent‐driven sampling methods (n = 728) Collection method: survey/self report Description of the community coalition: Established in 1999, the Harlem Community and Academic Partnership is composed of 30 community‐based organizations in Harlem, 4 academic institutions, and the local health department. The partnership focuses on community‐based participatory research; members actively participate in needs assessment, issue identification, and priority setting
Participants	Communities: IDUs in the community of Harlem, New York Country: USA Ages included in assessment: > 18 years of age Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: Partnership initially was created in Harlem to increase community participation in research. Early data indicate that IDUs in the intervention community had low levels of participation in the Expanded Syringe Access Demonstration Program (ESAP) Intervention community (population size): Harlem, NY (not reported) Comparison community (population size): South Bronx, NY (not reported)
Interventions	Name of intervention: Harlem Expanded Syringe Access Program (ESAP) Intervention Project Theory: not reported Aim: to determine whether a multi‐level intervention would increase sterile syringe access through a new policy allowing non‐prescription syringe sales in pharmacies Description of costs and resources: not reported Components of the intervention: multi‐level, multi‐component intervention including 1‐on‐1 education, workshops/small groups/trainings, presentations and community events, and dissemination of educational materials. Target populations included community residents, pharmacists, and IDUs Start date: July 1, 2002 Duration: 1 year
Outcomes	Outcomes and measures: utilization of new or previously used syringe at last injection, utilization of pharmacy to obtain new syringes within last 6 months Time points: Pre‐intervention data were collected from January 1, 2001, to June 31, 2002; post‐intervention data were collected from July 1, 2002, to September 1, 2004
Notes	Intervention outreach activities were targeted to community residents, pharmacists, and IDUs. Pre‐ and post‐intervention evaluations to assess awareness, attitudes and perceptions of community members and pharmacists were also collected and reported Funding source: government and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Non‐randomized
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation not concealed
Baseline outcome measurement similar	Low risk	No statistical examination of differences between intervention and control communities was provided. However, baseline outcomes measurements appear to be similar
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	No statistical examination of differences between intervention and control communities was provided. Significant differences reported in pre and post samples for age, gender, and ethnic composition. Study authors did not report that results were controlled for these baseline differences
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Independent samples immune to attrition. Pre‐ and post‐intervention response rates not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding not reported
Protection against contamination	High risk	Contamination effect possible
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Some reported questionnaire items and analysis plans not presented