Anand 2007.

Methods	Design: RCT Timing: Prospective Allocation to group: Random Number of clusters or sites: 51 households Number of individuals: 159 Length of intervention: 6 months
Participants	General description of participants: 2‐parent families with at least 1 child living in an Aboriginal reserve in Ontario, Canada Age: All ages Inclusion criteria: "Eligible households on the Six Nations Reserve had to be comprised of a male and/or female parent with at least one child living in the same household, and all individuals between 5 and 70 years of age (including grandparents) were eligible." Exclusion criteria: "Households were excluded if they: a) were not willing to have the health counsellor visit their homes, b) had a planned absence from the Reservation for >1 month during the intervention, or c) had a planned break‐up of the household in the coming year. Individual exclusion criteria are listed elsewhere [Reference to a webpage which could not be located]" Recruitment: N/R Weight status at baseline: Body weight was not an inclusion criterion; the mean baseline BMI of the adults participants was 35 in the intervention and 33 in the control group SSB consumption at baseline: Baseline SSB consumption was not an inclusion criterion; baseline SSB and juice consumption was 1.3 servings/day in the intervention and 1.5 servings/day in the control group Equity considerations: "The Six Nations people may be disproportionately affected by obesity because of their rapid change from a physically active to a relatively sedentary lifestyle, as well as their dietary transition from lower energy non‐processed to energy‐dense processed foods, all of which is compounded by the relatively low socio‐economic status of this community"
Interventions	Intervention: Home delivery of water (The intervention included "two 18 L containers of filtered spring water, and 24 bottles of spring water provided to intervention households/week") Behavioural co‐intervention: Dietary counselling (The intervention included "a regular home visit by Aboriginal health counsellors who were trained to assess and set dietary and physical activity goals for each household member") Control: Minimal intervention (Quote: "Usual care families received Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating and Canada’s Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living")
Outcomes	Measures of SSB intake: Servings of SSB ("soda pop and juice") per day, assessed through 1 x 24‐hour dietary recall at baseline and 6 months Measures of intake of alternatives to SSB: Servings of bottled or distilled water per day, assessed through 1 x 24‐hour dietary recall at baseline and 6 months Anthropometric measures: Assessed in the study but not included in our review, due to confounding by non‐beverage‐specific intervention components Adverse outcomes: The study does not report how data on adverse outcomes were collected, and if adverse outcomes were observed or not Other outcomes: None included in this review
Context and implementation	Setting: Participants' homes Sector: Health care Country: Canada Year(s) when implemented: 2005 Mode of implementation: Pilot trial by researchers Level of implementation: Setting‐based intervention
Declarations	COI: No information provided by study authors (the study's primary report does not contain a COI section) Funding: "Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Grant number: MCT 64076" Trial registration: N/R Protocol availability: Protocol mentioned in the report but not publicly available
Notes	None
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The study's published report does not provide details on the methods used for randomisation, but the study's statistician provided us with the information that randomisation was performed by a central, automated randomisation service
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	See explanation above
Similarity of baseline outcome measurements (selection bias)	Low risk	Baseline differences in the outcomes of interest to us (beverages) were small and were taken into account in the analysis
Similarity of other baseline characteristics (selection and performance bias)	Low risk	Differences in baseline characteristics of household seem to be small (see table 2 of the study's primary report)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Results are based on a per‐protocol analysis, but attrition was low (< 10%) and similar in the intervention and control group. Quote: "[O]utliers total kcals <200 or >10,000 and those missing baseline or 6‐month data were excluded"
Blinding (performance and detection bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Blinding was not possible, and the outcomes of interest to us were self‐reported
Contamination (performance bias)	Low risk	Neighbours could have spread the word about the intervention, but it seems unlikely that the control group received the intervention (home delivery of beverages)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There was a study protocol (not published), and the outcomes reported correspond with the outcomes in the Methods section, and the Methods section clearly distinguishes primary and secondary outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	No other concerns