Chanruengvanich 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	Unit of randomisation: participant
Participants	Place of recruitment: hospital (centre specialising in neurology) Numbers randomised: total: 72; I: 36; C: 36 % Completing final follow‐up: 86% Inclusion criteria: > 6 weeks since TIA or minor stroke; energy expenditure < 1000 Kcal/week; age > 45 years; no cognitive impairment; able to exercise; BP ≤ 180/100 mmHg; fasting blood sugar ≤ 150 mg% Exclusion criteria: complications e.g. heart attack or chest pain Type of stroke (%): not reported Mean age (SD): I: 62.8 (7.4); C: 63.1 (7.1) Gender (% women): I: 68%; C: 68% Ethnicity: not reported Socio‐economic or socio‐demographic status: Marital status: single – 11%, couple – 63%, separated – 26% Educational level: elementary – 53%, high school – 21%, vocational/college – 15%, bachelor degree – 10%, master degree – 1.6% Income (Baht): < 5000 – 63%, 5001 to 10,000 – 16%, 10,001 to 15,000‐ 8%, 15,001 to 20,000 ‐ 8%, > 20,000 ‐ 5%
Interventions	Intervention details (components, length, frequency): 12 week self‐regulated exercise program; first week ‐ educational meeting (topics included disease management, diet, exercise and stress management); second week ‐ instruction in self‐regulation techniques and recommended exercises (using group demonstration and video); third week ‐  home visit from researcher to identify problems; second to twelfth weeks – moderate exercise for a minimum of 15 minutes 2 to 3 times per day (recorded in exercise diary) with energy expenditure target 1000 kcal per week; researcher made weekly telephone calls to encourage participants to adhere to the exercise program Location: community Mode of delivery: patient education, home visit and telephone follow‐up Personnel responsible for delivery: researcher/investigator Timing post‐stroke: > 6 weeks Control: usual care
Outcomes	12 weeks: SBP; DBP; total cholesterol; HDL
General Information	Funding: this research was supported by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation Country of origin: Thailand Publication language: English
Notes	Analysis method: not stated (per protocol) Risk of bias: unclear
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Each patient was randomly assigned" ‐ method not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Missing data reported by group Attrition: I: 5/36 (1 withdrew; 4 illness prohibited exercise); C: 3/36 (3 withdrew) Excluded from analysis: I: 0; C: 2/36 (2 excluded to balance the groups) Judgement: reasons for missing data reported and review authors judge that they are unlikely to be related to study outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol available and all outcomes are reported in the pre‐specified way
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias