Charrois 2006.

Methods	Design: RT Groups: intervention (asthma management); control group (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: 5 Pharmacy workers: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: 70 patients with asthma mean age: intervention 35.7 ± 10.2 years; control 38.7 ± 10.7 years % female:intervention 52.8%; control 52.9% Setting: rural Country: Canada
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: pharmacist trained in an interactive, activity and case‐based program which focused on patient assessment, patient interviewing and communication skills Delivered by: unclear Type: self‐management; patient assessment, patient interviewing and communication skills Mode of delivery: group TDF: knowledge, skills Duration: appears to have been a single afternoon with ongoing support visits and meetings as needed. Pharmacy worker control: the same pharmacists delivered care to both intervention and control groups ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: patients received education on asthma, assessment, and optimisation of drug therapy, with focus on a written asthma plan Delivered by: pharmacist and referral to respiratory therapist and/or physician as needed Type: self‐management; education; medication management; based on clinical practice guidelines Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face TDF: knowledge, behavioural regulation Duration: an initial visit for information/education, referral to physician and pharmacist follow‐up: 2 weeks and at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months. Respiratory therapist follow‐up: 2 and 6 months Follow‐up: 6 months (end of intervention) Pharmacy user control: wait list with asthma education and advice as needed, as well as referral to respiratory therapist
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: inhaled corticosteroid use; number of courses of oral steroid and FEV1 Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: change in the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) Quality of life: not assessed Process: number of emergency room visits and hospitalisations Costs/HCU: emergency room visits, hospitalisations
Notes	Study/intervention name: Better Respiratory Education and Asthma Treatment in Hinton and Edson study (BREATHE) Funding source: Canadian Institues of Health Research Charrois 2004 (cited under Charrois 2006) also referred to this study
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomization was accomplished through an Internet randomization service provided by the Epidemiology Coordinating and Research (EPICORE) Centre and the Centre for Community Pharmacy Research and Interdisciplinary Strategies (COMPRIS) at the University of Alberta. Randomization was stratified by centre."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Centralised service, see above
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	No differences for main outcomes
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	Differences for range characteristics ‐ text reported that this was controlled for in analyses.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Last value of ACQ carried forward where missing
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	It is possible that assessors were not blinded
Protection against contamination	Low risk	Cluster randomised
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Not noted
Other bias	High risk	Quote: “The sites did not apply the intervention uniformly. According to case report forms received, follow‐up was poor, few asthma management recommendations were made, and one‐quarter of patients in the intervention group never received a written action plan, [which was] the focus of the intervention. The follow‐up completed at each site varied, with some sites having less than 30% follow‐up at the time of the 6‐month visit. The low rate of follow‐up leads us to believe that the application of the intervention was also minimal at these sites.”
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Caregivers/pharmacists involved in the study were not blinded.