Crockett 2006.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RT Groups: intervention (depression management); control (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: 32 Pharmacy worker: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: 106 patients with depression mean age: intervention 46 (SD: 12 years); control 46 (SD: 15 years) % female: intervention 76%; control 82% Setting: rural Country: Australia
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: intervention pharmacists were given video‐conference training on the nature and management of depression and were asked to dispense medication with extra advice and support. Delivered by: a psychiatrist, psychologist and GP Type: education; disease management Mode of delivery: video/DVD (video‐conference training) TDF: knowledge, skills, environment, context and resources Duration: not reported Pharmacy worker control: usual care ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: education on depression management; patient’s psychological well‐being monitoring, attitudes towards taking antidepressants, adherence and patient satisfaction with service. Delivered by: pharmacists. Type: education; disease management. Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face; video/DVD; written materials TDF: knowledge, emotion Duration: variable; an initial visit and then, to quote, "checking ‘how they were going’ at subsequent visits to the pharmacy". Follow‐up: 3 months Pharmacy user control: usual care
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: not assessed. Psychological health: patients' well‐being (K10) Behavioural: adherence Quality of life: not assessed Process: patient satisfaction with service; attitude towards taking antidepressants (using the Drug Attitude Index (DAI)). Costs: not assessed.
Notes	Study/intervention name: none given Funding source: grant from the Rural and Remote Pharmacy Infrastructe Grants scheme
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomised, but no specific method mentioned.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not mentioned
Baseline outcome measures similar	Unclear risk	Baseline differences unclear
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	No differences in the characteristics reported, but reported adjustment in analyses for baseline differences
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Nothing noted
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not mentioned
Protection against contamination	High risk	Randomisation at pharmacist level but four of control pharmacies were delivering similar intervention
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Nothing noted.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Assessments may have impacted outcome
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not mentioned