Slark 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT Unit of randomisation: participant
Participants	Place of recruitment: hospital (inpatient) Numbers randomised: total: 96 (I: 47; C: 49) % Completing final follow‐up: 98% Inclusion criteria: ischaemic stroke Exclusion criteria: cognitive or memory difficulties that precluded participation in the intervention Type of stroke: ischaemic (100%) Mean age (SD): I: 65 (12); C: 66 (13) Gender: I: 64%; C: 53% Ethnicity: White: I: 62%; C: 67%; "Black Ethnic Minority (BME) groups made up 13% of the total cohort" Socio‐economic or socio‐demographic status: university education: I: 40%; C: 18% married: 57%; C: 55%
Interventions	Intervention details (components, length, frequency): 30‐minute risk awareness session: involved tailored information provision on the topics of stroke aetiology, risk factors and secondary prevention medications; participants were informed of their individual risk scores for secondary stroke Location: hospital Mode of delivery: inpatient appointment Personnel responsible for delivery: researcher Timing post‐stroke: initiated prior to hospital discharge Control: usual care (no additional risk awareness information)
Outcomes	3 months: recurrent stroke; SBP, DBP, total cholesterol, adherence to secondary prevention medications
General Information	Funding: this research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not‐for‐profit sectors Country of origin: UK Publication language: English
Notes	Analysis method: available case analysis Risk of bias: low
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Subjects were randomized using computer‐generated random codes"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"The researcher was blind to randomization until after recruitment of each participant to avoid selection bias….this was achieved through sealing each random code in an envelope prior to commencing the trial, which was only selected after the participant had been recruited."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Missing data reported by group Attrition: I: 0/47; C: 2/47 (2 lost to follow‐up) 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	Examination of study reports suggests that all outcomes were reported in the pre‐specified way
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias