Ali 2012.

Methods	Design: RT Groups: intervention (diabetes education); control (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: 2 Pharmacy workers: pharmacists 3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharrmacy users: 48 people with type 2 diabetes mean age: control 66.8 ± 10.2 years; intervention 66.4 ± 12.7 years % female: control 43.5%; intervention 56.5% Setting: unsure Country: UK
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: 8‐hour training programme involving workshop sessions with a consultant diabetologist and diabetes specialist nurse TDF: knowledge Pharmacy worker control: it appears the same pharmacists delivered both control and intervention treatments ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: patients received a programme of education about diabetes, its treatment and associated cardiovascular risk factors. Delivered by: pharmacists Type: self‐management, behaviour change, education materials Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face TDF: knowledge Duration: 6 sessions over 12 months (every month for the first 2 months, and then every 3 months until month 12; a total of six appointments) Follow up: 12 months (i.e. end of intervention) Pharmacy user control: usual care
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: BMI, SBP/DBP, blood glucose, HbA1c, LDL, HDL, triglycerides, total cholesterol Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: not assessed Quality of life: Diabetes Quality of Life Brief Clinical Inventory (DQOL), Health Status (Short Form‐36) Process: Satisfaction with Information received about Medicines (SIMS); Patients' concerns and necessities about their medicines (Beliefs about Medication Questionnaire (BMQ); Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT)) Costs/resources: emergency hospital visits or admissions (diary)
Notes	Study/intervention name: none reported Funding source: Department of Health, UK; Merck Sharp, Dohme Ltd
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation conducted by a computer‐generated randomised list.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	List held by the researcher at the School of Pharmacy, eliminating the potential influence of pharmacists on the randomisation.
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	No difference in primary outcomes, some secondary outcomes not used in current analysis were significantly different
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	No differences
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No incomplete data
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Protection against contamination	High risk	Control and intervention participants randomised within same pharmacy
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Some selective reporting; assessed questionnaires at 5 months but did not report, data on medication use not included, but no significant differences reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported