Goldberg 2013.

Methods	Allocation: randomised Blindness: not stated Study duration: 5 months Location: multicentre Design: parallel Setting: outpatients Country: USA Consent: written
Participants	Diagnosis: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, major depression, or post‐traumatic stress disorder N = 63 History: not stated Sex: men 30, women 33 Age: mean 49.5, SD 9.1 years Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	Group 1: peer support + standard care (n = 32). Content: Living Well, the adapted programme. An advisory panel comprising a mental health consumer and study investigators met every other week for 3 months (July–September 2007) to consider modifications of the original CDSMP [Chronic Disease Self‐Management Program] intervention for outpatients with serious mental illness. Delivered by: peers. Frequency: 60‐ to 75‐minute sessions delivered weekly. Treatment duration: 13 weeks followed by a 2‐month booster. Group 2: standard care (n = 31). Content: not stated. Treatment duration: 5 months.
Outcomes	Service use: clinically important engagement, use of emergency services Behaviour: activation, approach to health care, self‐efficacy, recovery, healthy eating, self‐management, behaviours, internal locus of control for health Leaving the study early Functioning: general, physical, emotional well‐being Peer outcomes: social support Unable to use Global state: compliance with medication (see What's new) Mental state: behavioural and cognitive symptoms (skewed data) Behaviour: physical activity (skewed data) Functioning: Instrument to Measure Self‐Management, skewed data
Notes	Funding source: Grant MH078168. We contacted author to clarify the proportion of schizophrenia but received no reply.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Of 63 participants, 32 were randomly assigned to Living Well program and 31 to standard care." Comment: insufficient information to make judgement.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: author did not describe allocation concealment. Insufficient information to make judgement.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: the author did not describe the blinding of participants and personnel. Insufficient information to make judgement.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: the author did not describe the blinding of outcome assessment. Insufficient information to make judgement.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Of the 63 participants in the total sample, 58 (92%) completed the postintervention assessment and 57 (90%) completed the two‐month follow‐up assessment. Follow‐up rates did not differ significantly between conditions." Comment: low attrition rate. Attrition rates were balanced in groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: study protocol not available. Insufficient information to make judgement.
Other bias	Low risk	None noted