Adepu 2007.

Methods	Design: RT Groups: intervention group (pharmacist counselling); control group (waiting list control)
Participants	Pharmacies: 2 Pharmacy workers: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy users: 70 people with type 2 diabetes mean age: intervention 51.45 ± 12.27 years; control 53.77 ± 10.35 years % female: intervention 25.7%; control 37.1% Setting: urban Country: India
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: not reported Pharmacy worker control: it was unclear whether one pharmacy site acted as a control and the other as the intervention, or whether pharmacists across both sites delivered both counselling to patients receiving the intervention and no treatment to controls ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: patients received counselling and an information leaflet about their disease, diet and lifestyle modifications. Delivered by: pharmacists Type: behaviour change and education Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face; written materials TDF: knowledge Duration: not reported Follow‐up: collected at the final follow‐up visit (end of intervention). The duration of intervention delivery was unclear, although the study period was stated as being 6 months. Pharmacy user control: waiting list
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: random capillary blood glucose levels Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: not assessed Quality of life: Audit of Diabetes‐Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQOL‐18) questionnaire Process: disease awareness and management using Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) questionnaire Costs/health‐care utilisation: not assessed
Notes	Study/intervention name: none given Funding source: JS Mahavidyapeetha, Mysore
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Baseline outcome measures similar	Unclear risk	Not reported
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	In the intervention group a higher % of men had a greater range of duration of illness
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Attrition was reported, but it was unclear whether this was accounted for in the analysis. Quote: "Out of 70 patients, two expired, four were hospitalized and four did not respond."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported
Protection against contamination	High risk	Patients randomised within pharmacy
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All 3 outcomes mentioned in the Methods were reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Not clear whether the 2 participating pharmacies were representative of this area.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported