Mayer 1998.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RT Groups: intervention group (pharmacist training in skin cancer prevention); control group (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies 54 (out of 88 sites) Pharmacy worker: pharmacists 147 (out of 178 invited) mean age: intervention 40.52 years; control 41.84 years % female: intervention 45.1%; control 32.3% ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: not targeted Setting: unclear Country: USA
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: training was provided to pharmacists about how to reduce ultraviolet radiation exposure and use sun protection of 15 or higher. A videotape and accompanying print materials were used for 3 weeks, then pharmacists received weekly written feedback on skin cancer prevention counselling performance, plus incentives for the "winning" performance for a further 3 weeks. The 23‐minute videotape contained didactic information about skin cancer prevention, a model ("Ask, Advise, and Assist") to help pharmacists give brief counselling to their patients,and 6 brief scenes showing pharmacist‐patient interactions. Delivered by: researcher; other pharmacist Type: education materials Mode of delivery: video/DVD; written materials; face‐to‐face feedback TDF: knowledge, skills, environment, context and resources Duration: length of intervention: approximately 6 weeks; Follow‐up: 7 weeks after baseline (i.e. end of intervention) Pharmacy worker control: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: not directly targeted
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: Uptake: 54 sites selected out of 54; 128 of 178 pharmacists completed pretest survey Behavioural: simulated patient ‐ reported the percentage provided with verbal counselling; distribution of brochure and/or sunscreen sample ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: not assessed
Notes	Study/intervention name: Project SUNWISE Funding source ‐ Grant AR 43025 from the National Institue of Arthritis and Musculskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), videotape by Glaxo Wellcome Mayer 1998 (cited under Mayer 1998) also refers to this study
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method not specified
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information in trial report
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	Although differences at baseline were reported, these were controlled for in analyses
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	No significant differences apparent
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Across all observations, 138 pharmacists were observed. Of these, 33 were observed at pretest only, 25 were observed at post‐test only, and 80 were observed at both times. Intervention site pharmacists 71; control site pharmacists 67 Not clear how missing data from pre/post‐test were handled
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Simulated patients (mystery shoppers) blind to study groups
Protection against contamination	Low risk	Cluster randomisation
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Not noted
Other bias	High risk	There appeared to be some discrepancy in figures reported between publications.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Confederates were blinded to pharmacy study conditions, but pharmacists were aware of intervention group.