Whitby 2008.

Methods	Design: ITS Duration: 2004‐2006, with 24 months of data collection following start of each campaign Geneva: pre‐intervention July‐October 2004; intervention October 2004‐May 2005 Washington: pre‐intervention July‐November 2004; intervention November 2004‐May 2005 Australia
Participants	All healthcare workers in multiple units
Interventions	3 separate interventions: 1) Simple substitutions: ABHR for soap, and 1 type of ABHR for another 2) Geneva campaign: based on the Geneva campaign (Pittet 2000) that existed at the time which consisted of all of the elements later included in the WHO Guidelines 2009 3) Washington campaign: based on a campaign that had taken place in Washington (Larson 2000) and consisted of the elements later included in the WHO Guidelines 2009 with informal feedback during the staff involvement in all aspects of design and implementation
Outcomes	Product use (electronic count of soap/AHBR dispensers)
Notes	Appropriate analysis for ITS Funding source: None Declaration of interest: No information given
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Staff involved in developing campaign so participants aware of intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Objective measure used
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Missing data (missed opportunities) unlikely to be different in different time periods
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No evidence of selective reporting
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence
Intervention independent	Unclear risk	They did not comment on whether there were other changes, outbreaks etc.
Shape of effect pre‐specified	Low risk	Point of analysis same as point of intervention
Intervention had no effect on data collection	Low risk	Data collection method same before and after