Reid 2012.

Methods	Study design: Multicentre RCT (2 sites) Country: Canada Dates patients recruited: December 2004 to December 2007 Maximum follow up: 12 months
Participants	Inclusion criteria: Admitted for acute coronary syndromes who: underwent successful percutaneous coronary revascularization; were not planning on enrolling in CR; had internet access at home or work; and were 20 to 80 years of age. Exclusion criteria: CABG; implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator; NYHA Class III or IV heart failure; inability to speak and read English. N Randomised: total: 223 ; intervention: 115; comparator: 108 Diagnosis (% of pts): AMI this admission: 29.1% PCI this admission: 98.2% First cardiac event: 64.6% Previous AMI: 18.8% Previous PCI: 27.4% Previous CABG: 9.0% Age (mean ±SD): intervention: 56.7 ± 9.0; comparator: 56.0 ± 9.0 Percentage male: intervention: 82.6%; comparator: 86.1% Ethnicity: NR
Interventions	Intervention: Participants were visited in hospital by an exercise specialist, who presented a personally tailored physical activity plan and instructions on how to access the CardioFit website. Following discharge, participants were asked to log their daily activity on the CardioFit website and complete a series of five online tutorials (at weeks 2, 4, 8, 14, and 20). Following each tutorial, a new physical activity plan was developed. Between tutorials, participants received emails from the exercise specialist providing motivational feedback on their progress. Components: exercise plus psychological support. Setting: home. Aerobic exercise: Modality: NR Length of session: NR Frequency: NR Intensity: NR Resistance training included? NR Total duration: 20 weeks Co‐interventions: The CardioFit website and tutorials were designed to foster behavioural capability, self‐efficacy, social support, and realistic outcome expectations. Tutorials were organised to engage self‐control processes including exercise planning, goal setting, monitoring and self‐regulation, and relapse prevention. Comparator: physical activity guidance from their attending cardiologist and an education booklet. Co‐interventions: none described.
Outcomes	HRQL
Source of funding	Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. Dr Reid was supported by a New Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Dr Blanchard is supported by the Canada Research Chairs programme.
Conflicts of interest	"The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests"
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Participants were randomized ... using a random sequence that was computer generated by a statistical consultant in blocks of 4, 8, and 10."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Sequences were generated for Ottawa and London and placed in sealed, numbered envelopes to ensure that treatment allocation was concealed until after baseline data collection. Research coordinators allocated the next available number on study entry (while the participant was still hospitalized)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Research assistants, blinded to the participants’ treatment allocation, conducted follow‐up assessments"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Loss to follow‐up was well reported but was high in both groups 36/115 [31%] and 33/108 [31%] were lost to follow up from the Intervention and control groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes described in the methods section are reported in results.
Groups balanced at baseline	Low risk	"The two study groups were similar when demographic and clinical factors and pre‐hospitalization levels of leisure‐time physical activity were compared."
Intention‐to‐treat analysis conducted	Low risk	No intention‐to‐treat analysis was conducted, but missing outcome values were replaced by multiple imputations after confirming that the data were missing at random.
Groups received same treatment (apart from the intervention)	High risk	"The intervention also focused on altering the key mediators of behaviour change, including self‐efficacy, social support and motivation". The comparator group did not recieve this support.