Goodyer 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: single‐blind parallel‐group randomised controlled trial Duration: intervention and assessment on the same day Setting: GP surgeries in Camden followed by 'snowball' convenience sampling method was therefore used; contacts in social clubs and informal networks in Tower Hamlets and Camden, UK Trial registration: not reported
Participants	Population: 69 Turkish‐speaking people with asthma randomised to a multi‐media touch screen system (MTS) (n = 34) or translated patient information leaflet (PIL) plus support from a translator (PIL + verbal) (n = 35) (PIL + supported treatment as control) Age: mean (SD) age across both groups 41 (17.5) years Baseline asthma severity: not reported Inclusion criteria: Turkish‐speaking people with asthma who use an MDI Exclusion criteria: not reported Percentage withdrawn: not drop‐out Other allowed medication: not reported
Interventions	Intervention summary: MTS system covered key steps in correct inhaler use and additional information on posture. Participant could interact with the programme by selecting to replay a step, or could move on to the next one. Participants were allowed to use the programme for as long as they wished before repeating the demonstration. The researcher/translator identified areas where technique could be improved, then spent up to 15 minutes discussing this with the user Control summary: Leaflet was produced by one of the trial authors (fluent in Turkish) and was an exact translation of the current version of Allen and Hanbury’s PIL for the Ventolin MDI. Participants were allowed to study the leaflet for as long as they wished before repeating the demonstration. The researcher/translator identified areas where technique could be improved, then spent up to 15 minutes discussing this with the user
Outcomes	Outcomes measured: inhaler technique Technique assessment method used: Participants were videotaped while using their inhaler before and after the intervention. Blinded assessor rated their technique first as a 'quick check', then using a checklist
Notes	Type of publication: single peer‐reviewed journal article Funding: funded by the Department of Health and the North London Primary Care Research Network (Nocten)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	'"Patient allocation was done using random number tables"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	'"Patients did not know in advance which information method they would receive" but no description of concealing allocation from investigators
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel were aware of group allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"These assessors (of the inhaler technique videos) did not attend experimental sessions and had no contact with patient volunteers. They were therefore blind as to the information format"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Study was completed in 1 session, with technique assessed before and after instruction. No drop‐out
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No prospective trial registration identified. Only outcome described in Methods (inhaler technique) is clearly reported, but baseline characteristics per arm not given, so not able to objectively assess for baseline imbalance
Other bias	Low risk	None noted