Reynolds 2004.

Methods	Allocation: randomised Blindness: non‐blinded Study duration: 5 months Location: single centre Design: parallel Setting: discharged inpatients Country: UK Consent: written
Participants	Diagnosis: range of mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression N = 25 History: not stated Sex: not stated Age: not stated Exclusion criteria: people with dementia, people who were discharged from hospital before having had the opportunity to develop a relationship with their transitional nurse
Interventions	Group 1: peer‐support + standard care (n = 11). Content: peer support, which was assistance from former patients who provide friendship, understanding and encouragement; and overlap of inpatient and community staff in which the inpatient staff continue to work with the discharged patient until a working relationship was established with a community care provider. Delivered by: previous service user of the mental health system. Frequency: type and intensity of assistance provided by the peer supporter varied according to individual preference Treatment duration: 5 months. Group 2: standard care (n = 14). Content: usual treatment, comprised the standard discharge arrangements normally provided to patients and included referral to locality‐based community psychiatric nurses. Treatment duration: 5 months.
Outcomes	Service use: hospital admission Leaving study early Functioning: general, physical, societal role, interpersonal functioning, cognitive Peer outcomes: quality of life for participant and peer supporter Unable to use Mental state: aggressiveness, anxiety, attention problems, depression, emotional withdrawal, family problems, hyperaffect, interpersonal problems, resistiveness, suicide feelings, thought process difficulties (skewed data) Functioning: daily living (skewed data)
Notes	Funding source: Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Executive.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Subjects were randomly assigned to groups by a computerized random number facility." Comment: adequate sequence generation.
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	High risk	Quote: "The researchers were not blinded to the intervention status of participants." Comment: personnel were not blinded. No information for blinding of participants.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "The researchers were not blinded to the intervention status of participants." Comment: the blinding of assessors was not ensured.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "A small number of patients were lost to study (control n= 3; experimental n=3) and consequently data on 19 subjects were included in the final analysis." Comment: low attrition rate, 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.