Allen 2010.

Methods	Cluster‐randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	398 + 414 men considering prostate cancer screening in the USA
Interventions	DA: computer tailored programme on clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification, others' opinion and guidance (step‐by‐step process for making the decision; interactive computer programme: inherently guided the patient through the decision aid and decision making process), tailored printout given to patients to promote discussion with others (practitioner, significant others) Comparator: no intervention
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: decisional status, knowledge, decision self‐efficacy, decisional consistency Secondary outcomes: desire for involvement in decision making, decisional conflict, preferred options Outcomes assessed pre‐ and postintervention
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Sites were blocked on size and percent of male employees and randomly assigned by computer‐generated random numbers to condition within blocks" (p 2173, Setting)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The study does not address this criterion.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The study does not address this criterion.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear blinding but outcomes measured were not subjective to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data and low rate of attrition that was consistent between groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No mention of protocol
Other bias	Low risk	Intervention delivery: mention of money incentive to complete paperwork, but was judged to have no effect on outcomes measured (p 2175)