McLean 2003.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RT (paired by geographic similarity) Groups: intervention group (enhanced pharmaceutical care); control group (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: 27 Pharmacy worker: 33 pharmacists, all of whom had prior training in the pharmaceutical care of asthma ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy users: 405 (191 enhanced care; 214 usual care) Setting: unclear Country: British Columbia, Canada
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: nothing additional to their pre study training in asthma ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: tailored education to patient's readiness to change (intervention only begun once someone in contemplation and strategies applied when in preparation). Taught correct inhaler technique, peak flow monitoring and self‐management skills, and enhanced pharmaceutical care Delivered by: pharmacist Type: asthma self‐management, environment, context, resources, behavioural regulation Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face TDF: knowledge, skills, Duration: length of intervention: 6 x 60‐minute sessions for a minimum of 9 months. (1 meeting every 2 to 3 weeks for at least 3 appointments then at least every 3 months) Follow‐up: a minimum of 9 to 12 months from baseline (end of intervention period) Pharmacy user control: taught inhaler technique and provided a minimum of 9 months usual care after which enhanced care was offered
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: PEFR Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: refill prescriptions Quality of life: Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) Process: not assessed Costs: health care use and overall health costs
Notes	Study/intervention name: the BC Community Pharmacy Asthma Study Funding source: Health Transition Fund, Health Canada, and Glaxo‐Smith‐Kline for educational materials and diaries
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	By coin toss, central randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	By coin toss, central randomisation
Baseline outcome measures similar	Unclear risk	No specific test of baseline similarity, although mean change was used in analysis.
Baseline characteristics similar	Unclear risk	No specific test of baseline similarity
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Considerable dropout, although numbers reported it was unclear whether this was corrected for.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not clear whether it was the pharmacist or an independent individual who conducted assessment interviews.
Protection against contamination	High risk	11 'grand‐fathered' pharmacists appear to have offered both enhanced and usual care.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not noted
Other bias	Unclear risk	Although central randomisation used, there were different patient allocation methods which complicated study design. Usual care was also received from highly trained pharmacists which may not be reflective of all practice.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Pharmacists aware of groupings