Bynum 2001.

Methods	Design: RT Groups: intervention (telepharmacy counselling); control group (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: not reported Pharmacy worker: 2 pharmacists ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: 49 asthma patients mean age (43.4% aged 12‐14 years; 50% aged 15‐17 years; 6.5% aged 18‐19 years) % female: 69.4% Setting: rural Country: USA
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: pharmacists used interactive compressed video (telepharmacy) to teach metered dose inhaler (MDI) technique to a rural, adolescent asthma population in junior high and high schools. Delivered by: pharmacists and other healthcare professionals Type: condition management (correct MDI technique). Mode of delivery: video/DVD, telemedicine TDF: knowledge, skills Duration: 3 sessions, 15 minutes, over 3 to 4 weeks Follow‐up: 2 to 4 weeks Pharmacy user control: had telepharmacy contact, but not counselling until after study
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: not assessed Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: MDI technique checklist; Telepharmacy Metered‐Dose Inhaler Technique evaluation Quality of life: not assessed Process: not assessed Costs: not assessed
Notes	Funding source: grant from the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth in the Department of Health Resources and Services Administration Study/intervention name: none given
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number chart
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not specified
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	Reported in text as non significant
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	Reported in text as non significant
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Some loss to follow‐up and no reporting of correction for missing data
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not specified
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Not clear if control had access to intervention pharmacists
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Seemed to report all planned outcomes.
Other bias	Low risk	Not noted
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear whether pharmacist assessors were aware of grouping