Nola 2000.

Methods	Design: RT Groups: intervention group (lipid management program); control group (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: not targeted Pharmacy worker: not targeted ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: 51 patients at risk of coronary artery disease (25 intervention; 26 control) mean age: intervention 61.1 ± 9.5 years; control 58.4 ± 9.2 years % female: intervention 64%; control 53.8% Setting: urban Country: USA
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: patients received the lipid management program: diet and exercise evaluation and instruction, monitoring of cholesterol levels, monitoring of drug therapy, collaboration with physicians, education. Delivered by: pharmacist Type: behaviour change; education; self‐management; lifestyle Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face TDF: knowledge, skills, goals, behavioural regulation Duration: 6 months. seen every 1‐2 months, average number of visits: 5 Pharmacy user control: usual treatment
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: total cholesterol; LDL‐C; HDL‐C; triglyceride levels; health‐risk appraisal (wellness assessment questionnaire) Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: not assessed Quality of life: not assessed Process: Pharmaceutical Care Satisfaction Questionnaire (PCSQ); Hyperlipidemia‐Patient Knowledge evaluation Costs: not assessed
Notes	Study/intervention name: none given Funding source: Pharmacia‐Upjohn Corporation and education grant from Novartiz and Bristol‐Myers Squibb
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "A randomization schedule was developed using a computer‐generated list of random numbers"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	As above
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	No significant differences between groups at baseline
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	No significant differences between groups at baseline
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not clear how missing data managed
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No information on blinding but objective outcomes
Protection against contamination	High risk	In‐pharmacy randomisation
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Nothing noted
Other bias	Unclear risk	Possible that seasonal fluctuations influenced outcomes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Pharmacists must have been aware of group allocation.