McCaffery 2010.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid + informed choice vs HPV testing vs repeat smear
Participants	104 + 104 + 106 women screened as HPV indeterminate considering HPV testing in Australia
Interventions	DA: pamphlet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification, others' opinion and guidance (worksheet) Comparator 1: no decision support, received immediate HPV testing Comparator 2: no decision support, received a repeat cervical smear at 6 months
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: quality of life (post‐DA) Secondary outcomes: waiting time anxiety (post‐DA), , perceived risk (post‐DA), perceived seriousness of cancer (post‐DA), worriedness (post‐DA), intrusive thoughts (post‐DA), satisfaction with care (post‐DA), anxiety (post‐DA), distress and concerns (post‐DA), self‐esteem (post‐DA), effect on sexual behaviour (post‐DA), help seeking behaviour (post‐DA), knowledge (post‐DA)
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Participants were randomised centrally by the research team within each clinic in blocks of three" (p 2, Design)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Participants were randomised centrally by the research team within each clinic in blocks of three" (p 2, Design)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Patients and staff were unblinded, but objective outcomes were used
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All outcomes are on questionnaires; not subject to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Figure 3: sensitivity analysis was done to include most of the patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other sources of bias