CHAPS 2011.

Methods	Design: Cluster‐RCT Setting: Ontario, Canada. Cluster eligibility: population of 10,000 ‐ 60,000, 5+ GPs, 2+ pharmacies, Registered Persons Database to Census Population ratio < 10%, no recent geographical amalgamation into a major centre. Community recruitment via personalised invitation letter from participating family physicians or other local lead organisation (e.g. seniors centres, hospitals, community centres) Also advertised CHAP sessions by flyers, posters, paid and unpaid adverts in local media Dates: Autumn 2006 start Follow‐up: 1 year
Participants	Intervention N = 20 clusters Control N = 19 clusters All over‐65s included (but anyone could participate) At baseline, % diabetic: 22% control, 21% intervention At baseline, % with history of CCF: 12% control, 12% intervention Age (mean, SD) control: 74.49 (0.43); intervention: 74.82 (0.62) Men (%, SD) control: 42.65 (1.19); intervention: 42.92 (2.16) Diabetes (%, SD) control: 22.16 (2.34); intervention: 21.20 (2.79) Hx of CHF (%, SD) control: 12.19 (1.19); intervention: 12.45 (2.34)
Interventions	Setting: Community pharmacy Intervention: Standardised 10‐week programme. 3‐hour weekday BP and CVS risk factor assessment and education sessions held in community bases. Participants were given their risk profile, specific educational materials and info regarding availability of local community resources. Any participants identified as high risk (according to BP) were assessed by a nurse and referred immediately to family physician. At the end of the 10‐week programme, results sent to family physicians (with reports ordering participants by SBP) along with their diagnostic/treatment status. These data was resent to the GPs at 6 months, along with aggregate‐level data showing the performance of their practice compared to others in the locality regarding attaining target SBP. Risk factors assessed: BP, smoking, alcohol intake, diet, physical activity, height, weight Control: No intervention
Outcomes	Total mortality, stroke, MI, in‐hospital death from CVD, CHF, composite (hospital admissions for MI, stroke or CCF)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number generator
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	States undertaken by an independent expert
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Names of control communities were not publicised and the control community members were not notified that the study was taking place
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data outcomes taken from routinely‐collected population‐based administrative health data, and data analysts were blinded to group allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Numbers of individuals followed/lost to follow‐up not reported. Cluster‐level data reported only
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unclear