Chan‐Hong Kong 2000.

Methods	Allocation: randomised. Design: single site. Duration: 11 months (5‐month intervention period, 6‐month follow‐up). Country: Hong Kong.
Participants	Diagnosis: chronic schizophrenia. N = 62. Setting: recruited from a community mental hospital. Age: 21 to 65 years. Sex: 71% female. Ethnicity: not reported. History: suffered from schizophrenia for 2 or more years; had 3 or more hospitalisations in the past 24 months before admission; required supervision in living skills; unemployed for 3 or more months; and unreliable in compliance to treatment.
Interventions	1. ICM: based on the developed case management model, with a community psychiatric nurse case manager co‐ordinating care. Caseload 1:3. N = 31. 2. Standard care: traditional community psychiatric nursing care. Caseload 1:3. N = 31.
Outcomes	All of the usable outcomes are provided at the 6 months' follow‐up. Service use: unplanned admission through the Accident and Emergency Department; day hospital care; outpatient visits; home visits. Costs: direct healthcare costs. Unable to use ‐ SD or equivalent not reported: BPRS; Specific Level of Functioning scale (SLOF); Patient Satisfaction Instrument (PSI). Average number of days in hospital per month: it may have been possible to calculate this outcome (imputing SD), but we decided not to use it as the study reports data only on "unplanned admission", therefore the available data misses data on overall admission (planned and unplanned).
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Patients who met the inclusion criteria and provided consent were randomised to case management or conventional care after recruitment"; no further details were provided.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details on allocation concealment were reported.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No details reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Details on blinding participants and personnel were not reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Details on blinding outcome assessors were not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Analyses were reported as ITT; it was not reported whether any participants left early.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	For many of the outcome scales, only items that had a significant difference between experimental and control groups were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	The study seems to be free of other bias. The study reports that baseline characteristics were similar, although only age and gender were reported.