Schuler 2015.

Methods	Design: cluster RCT; communities assigned Location: western highlands of Guatemala Time frame: workshops March to April 2012 Sample size calculation (and outcome of focus): no mention
Participants	General with N: 30 communities; 1122 participants completed baseline survey Inclusion criteria for communities: western highlands (5 departments); rural areas where APROFAM (international Planned Parenthood affiliate) provided mobile services and trained volunteers promoting reproductive health Inclusion criteria for participants: live in the community; be married or in civil union; wife 18 to 40 years of age; both members of couple agree to participate; supposed to be well known and respected in community and have good communication with others Exclusion criteria: no mention
Interventions	Study focus: intervention focus on improving gender attitudes and communication about reproductive health Theory or model: C‐Change social and behavioral change model Intervention: 6 interactive sessions over 1 month (2 for men; 2 for women; 2 for couple); raise awareness of gender inequality and gender issues as barriers to sexual and reproductive health, and encourage gender‐equitable attitudes and interest in FP; APROFAM conducted FP component, e.g. distributing information sheets on contraceptive methods Comparison: delayed intervention
Outcomes	Primary: gender attitudes (Gender and FP Equity Scale) Secondary: knowledge and use of modern contraceptive methods, i.e. tubal ligation, vasectomy, OCs, emergency contraceptive pills, IUDs, injectables, implants, male and female condoms and spermicide Follow‐up: 2 months after baseline
Notes	Manual adapted from Stepping Stones, Sakhi Saheli (Population Council), and EngenderHealth Men Investigator communicated that APROFAM implemented FP component using standard material; due to staffing changes, investigators did not have further information
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information on sequence generation; randomly assigned 9 communities from each of 5 departments to 3 study arms (later dropped 3rd arm, service statistics only)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Communities identified prior to assignment; individuals within community were eligible if they met additional criteria
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No mention; blinding not feasible due to type of intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)	Unclear risk	No mention
Outcome measures	High risk	Self‐report of contraceptive use
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Loss to follow‐up: intervention 45% (269/597); control 44% (213/488)
Other bias	Unclear risk	Analysis for cluster RCT: logistic mixed model for contraceptive use and knowledge; models included random effects to account for community‐level randomization and repeated measures; study group and assessment time were fixed effects in model