Chrischilles 2014.

Methods	Randomised trial
Participants	294 participants with acute coronary syndrome (intervention (1) 97; intervention (2) 100; control 97 A community health facility, a community hospital, and a local Arc (a national community‐based organization advocating for and serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities) Iowa, USA Year of study: Not stated.
Interventions	Intervention was self‐management/health promotion workshops led by a trained facilitator and pharmacist‐led medication management compared with a 3rd arm (usual care). The intervention programme consisted of 8 weekly 2‐hour workshops. For the purpose of this review, we included only the self‐management/health promotion workshops led by a trained facilitator and pharmacist‐led medication management.
Outcomes	Mean symptoms
Notes	Funding source: This publication was supported by Grant Number 5R01DD000107 from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Conflict of interest: None stated
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	3 people were randomised at a time using sealed envelopes that contained the assignment order that had been randomly pre‐assigned by computer. The envelopes were prepared by an individual not involved in the interventions or data collection.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	3 people were randomised at a time using sealed envelopes that contained the assignment order that had been randomly pre‐assigned by computer. The envelopes were prepared by an individual not involved in the interventions or data collection.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1	High risk	Unblinded and allocation may have influenced the subjective outcome, mean symptoms.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1	High risk	Unblinded and subjective outcome of mean symptoms reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Between group attrition > 25%, however, complete data available for 96% participants.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Major results reported. Some post hoc analysis
Other bias	Low risk	None