Liambila 2010.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RT Groups: intervention (training on use of emergency contraceptives); control (standard care)
Participants	Pharmacies: 20 selected from 98 Pharmacy worker: mean age: information not provided % female: intervention 67.4%; control 50.0% ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: not reported Setting: urban Country: Nairobi, Kenya
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: updating the private pharmacy providers on appropriate use of emergency contraceptives, how best to dispense it to users, family planning methods, referral for sexually transmitted infection (STI)/HIV testing and counselling. In‐pharmacy information for pharmacy workers and users Delivered by: research assistants Type: education materials; reminders Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face; written materials TDF: knowledge, skills, environment, context and resources, behavioural regulation Duration: weekly sessions over 2 months Follow up: 2 months (end of intervention) Pharmacy worker control: usual practice ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: advice on emergency contraceptives, family planning and STI management. Delivered by: pharmacists Type: medication management; information provision, behavioural advice Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face Duration: delivered over 3 months Pharmacy user control: usual treatment
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: Uptake: 20 of 98 pharmacies selected, all of which participated Behavioural: mystery clients assessed pharmacist‐given information (on emergency contraceptives, offer of regular family planning services, talk about STIs/HIV and offer of STI services) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: not assessed
Notes	Study/intervention name: none given Funding source: William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomised, but method not specified
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	No differences
Baseline characteristics similar	Unclear risk	Little information
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information on missing data
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not clear if mystery clients were aware of groupings
Protection against contamination	Low risk	Control and intervention in separate geographical areas
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Nothing noted
Other bias	High risk	Not all baseline assessments completed before study commenced
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Intervention participants must have had awareness of grouping due to materials.