Bias	Author's judgment	Support for judgment
Risk of bias arising from the randomization process	Low risk	The villages were assigned STATA generated random numbers to allocate them to either the intervention or the control group, generating 10 clusters in each study group. The women from these clusters were identified by the study team in their communities and referred to the nearest designated local health Center where their pregnancy and the gestational age were confirmed and where they were also invited to consent to participate in the study.
Risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention)	High risk	There is no information on whether the participants and carers were aware of the intervention groups
Risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions (effect of adhering to intervention)	High risk	There is no information on whether the participants and carers were aware of the intervention groups as well as no information on adherence.
Missing outcome data	High risk	There is no information on the missingness or follow up of participants from eligibility to analysis.
Risk of bias in measurement of the outcome	High Risk	There is no information who assessed the outcomes or details on the intervention to inform the possibility of the intervention being influenced by external factors.
Risk of bias in selection of the reported result	Some concerns	There is no information on the planned analysis of the authors and the framework used to develop the questionnaire.