Dolovich 2007.

Methods	Design: RT Groups: intervention (Asthma Education Program (AEP); control (usual care‐delayed AEP)
Participants	Pharmacies: not reported Pharmacy workers: 64 of 160 approached (40%) mean age: intervention 42.80 ± 13.62 years; control 42.13 ± 9.82 years % female: intervention 58.1%; control 64.3% ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: not targeted Setting: urban Country: Canada
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: volunteer community pharmacists received an asthma education program (AEP) Delivered by: not specified Type: education: skill building Mode of delivery: group; individual face‐to‐face; written materials TDF: knowledge, skills, environment, context, resources Duration: one‐day workshop; 2 follow‐up telephone calls Follow‐up: 3‐5 weeks post workshop Pharmacy worker control: delayed AEP ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: not targeted
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: Uptake Behavioural: providing appropriate action plan, communication skills assessed by simulated patients (mystery shoppers) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: not assessed Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: not assessed Quality of life: not assessed Process: not assessed Costs: not assessed
Notes	Study/intervention name: none given Funding source: Merck Frosst Canada Inc, and in‐kind contribution from Agro Health Associates Inc, and the Centre for Evaluation of Medicines
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random numbers table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Concealed
Baseline outcome measures similar	Unclear risk	Only assessed post workshop
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	No reported differences
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low dropout, no patterns identified
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome assessors were blinded to assignment of the pharmacists to intervention or control groups.
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Unclear if there was interaction between sites
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not noted
Other bias	Unclear risk	Possible selection bias ‐ pharmacists volunteers
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not blinded to group allocation