Study	Reason for exclusion
Byers 2010	1. It was not a randomised trial because participants were assigned according to date of birth 2. Outcome measures: stroke knowledge test (20 multiple‐choice questions) and patient satisfaction survey (a 10‐item Likert scale), did not meet our predefined outcome measures 3. Enrolled participants with stroke or TIA and outcomes not reported separately
Gillham 2010	The study, which compared additional advice, motivational interviewing and telephone support + conventional care versus conventional care alone in patients with minor stroke/TIA, did not meet our predefined intervention criteria. What's more, the labelled 'motivational interviewing' is not real motivational interviewing because it is a motivational interviewing style of discussion about behaviour change intentions which does not consist of the primary principles of motivational interviewing as described by Miller 2013
Goossensen 2014	An abstract presented at the 23rd European Stroke Conference: it did not include our predefined outcome measures. The study compared motivational interviewing at a nurse‐led outpatient clinic versus standard outpatient clinic in patients with minor ischaemic stroke or TIA. Changes of lifestyle behaviour (diet, exercise, smoking cession, cholesterol and glucose) are the outcome measures in this study, which do not contain our predefined outcome measures. The study is still ongoing and no further details are available; we therefore listed it as an excluded study at present
Green 2007	1. Outcome measures: stroke knowledge test (a 43‐item, self report survey questionnaire) and changes of lifestyle risk factors (e.g. smoking, exercise, obesity, alcohol intake) did not meet our predefined outcome measures 2. Enrolled participants with minor stroke or TIA and outcomes not reported separately
Hedegaard 2014	The study compared a complex intervention with usual care in patients with stroke/TIA. The complex intervention consisted of a focused medication review, a brief motivational interviewing‐based consultation, and 3 follow‐up telephone supports, whereas the control group only received usual care without the same additional intervention, except motivational interviewing, as the intervention group. It did not meet our predefined intervention criteria
Leistner 2013	A protocol of an ongoing study; motivational interviewing is part of an intensified secondary prevention intervention; it does not meet our predefined intervention criteria. The ongoing study plans to compare intensified secondary prevention intervention (multifactorial risk factor modifications) with usual care for preventing recurrent events after stroke/TIA. The intensified secondary prevention intervention includes a total of 8 outpatient appointments, a motivational interviewing‐based method will be used to assess and enhance patients' motivation during each appointment
Mitchell 2009	The study investigated a brief psychosocial‐behavioural intervention for improving depression symptoms after stroke. Though some components (e.g. problem‐solving) of the intervention are similar to motivational interviewing, it was obvious that the intervention was modified from the 'Seattle Protocols' that did not conform to the primary principles of motivational interviewing as described by Miller 2013

TIA: transient ischaemic attack