Anderson 2005.

Methods	RCT with a wait‐listed control group Randomisation ratio: 1:1 Superiority design
Participants	Inclusion criteria: not stated; targeted to African Americans in urban area in Detroit Exclusion criteria: not stated Diagnostic criteria: not stated
Interventions	Number of study centres: not stated Treatment before study: 37% overall had previous HE Intervention: 2‐hour weekly group sessions for 6 weeks Control: wait‐listed Provider: certified diabetes educators (nurses)
Outcomes	Outcomes reported in abstract of publication: Primary outcome(s): HbA1c Lipids BP Weight Diabetes Care Profile (DCP) questionnaire Diabetes Empowerment Scale Short Form (DES‐SF) "Seriousness of diabetes" subscale of the Diabetes Attitudes Scale‐3 HbA1c lipids, BP, weight, Diabetes Care Profile (DCP); empowerment scales (psychosocial self‐efficacy); attitudes toward diabetes (seriousness of diabetes subscale of the Diabetes Attitudes Scale‐3) Secondary outcome(s): Not specified primary and secondary outcomes
Study details	Run‐in period: 4 years Study terminated before regular end: no
Publication details	Language of publication: English Funding: National Institutes of Health grants and the core of the Michigan Diabetes Research and Training Center Publication status: peer review journal
Stated aim of study	Quote from publication: "To evaluate the impact of problem‐based empowerment education program specifically tailored to urban African Americans with type 2 DM"
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: not stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: not mentioned
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcomes	High risk	Comment: not stated but from the nature of the intervention unlikely to have been blinded
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Comment: not stated but from the nature of the intervention unlikely to have been blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Lab tests: Lipids, HBA1C	Unclear risk	Comment: not mentioned
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Comment: not mentioned but participants completing questionnaires unlikely to have been blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Objective outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: roughly equal numbers lost to follow up in control and intervention groups. No mention of ITT analysis
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Subjective outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: significant number of control group lost to follow‐up at 6 weeks (33/119)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no outcomes appear to have been missed but no protocol available
Other bias	Unclear risk	Comment: none