Basheti 2008.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RT Groups: intervention (asthma inhaler technique); control (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: not reported Pharmacy worker: 31 pharmacists (16 intervention; 15 control) of 120 invited ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: 97 patients with asthma mean age: intervention group 40.4 ± 10.7 years; control 33.4 ± 9.3 years % female: intervention group 56.2%; control 33.3% Setting: urban Country: Australia
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: pharmacists received general information about asthma, inhaled medications, and peak flow meter technique. They were also trained to assess and teach correct Turbuhaler and Diskus inhaler techniques, asthma management etc. They were reassessed at the end of the workshop and 2 years after. Delivered by: specialists Type: education Mode of delivery: group TDF: knowledge, memory, attention and decision making Duration: 1 evening workshop for all pharmacists, lasted 3 hours for intervention group, 2 hours for control Follow‐up: 2 years Pharmacy worker control: pharmacists received general information about asthma, inhaled medications, and peak flow meter technique. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: patients' inhaler technique was assessed and then they were educated using a specialised ‘‘Show and Tell’’ inhaler technique counselling service, going through each step on a checklist to describe and demonstrate correct use; had an inhaler technique label placed on their inhaler, which highlighted incorrect steps Delivered by: pharmacists Type: behaviour change; self‐management Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face TDF: knowledge, skills, environment, context and resources Duration: length of intervention: 3 months + extra visit at 6 months Length of follow‐up: 6 months (end of intervention), and 2 years; follow‐ups at baseline, 3 monthly visits + 1 visit 6 months after study began Pharmacy user control: wait list ‐ inhaler technique assessed and then inhaler technique counselling provided at end of study.
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: Uptake: percentage Behavioural: inhaler technique ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: peak flow variability (Min%Max); categorisation of asthma severity based on the Australian Asthma Management Handbook Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: inhaler technique (Mean Inhaler Technique Score) Quality of life: Asthma‐Related Quality of Life (AQOL) Process: Perceived Control of Asthma Questionnaire (PCAQ) Costs: not assessed
Notes	Study/intervention name: none given Funding source: Faculty of Pharmacy, Univeristy of Sydney; placebo inhalers by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline Basheti 2007 and Basheti 2009 (both cited under Basheti 2008) also report on this study
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Pharmacists were allocated randomly by computer‐generated list to Active or Control groups."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	By computer
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	Analysis accounted for baseline
Baseline characteristics similar	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Minimal dropouts
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "We blinded pharmacists and patients by teaching both groups how to educate patients in correct peak flow meter technique."
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Unclear, as intervention and control pharmacists could work in same pharmacy
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not noted
Other bias	Unclear risk	Not noted ‐ possible recruitment bias of patients ‐ every second asthma patient
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "pharmacists ... blinded to true nature of intervention"