Okada 2018.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RT Groups: intervention group (lifestyle support for blood pressure); control (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: 73 (37 intervention; 36 control) Pharmacy worker: pharmacist ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: 125 hypertensive patients (64 intervention; 61 control) mean age: intervention 61.6 ± 9.9 years; control 66.6 ± 9.0 years % female: intervention 40% ; control 35% Setting: unclear Country: Japan
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: training in motivational interviewing‐based communication Delivered by: unclear Type: communication skills Mode of delivery: unsure whether face‐to‐face or some other means TDF: knowledge, skills Duration: 4 hours Pharmacy worker control: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: home blood pressure monitoring, healthy lifestyle advice using motivational interviewing and brochures Delivered by: community pharmacist Type: motivational interviewing Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face + leaflets TDF: knowledge, skills, goals, environment, context, resources, behavioural regulation Duration: 3 visits Follow‐up: 12 weeks from baseline, 4 weeks from end of intervention Pharmacy user control: provided with home blood pressure monitor and basic explanation of medications
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: Uptake: 73 pharmacies recruited but 17 did not recruit any patients) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: SBP/DBP, BMI Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: medication adherence (Morisky Scale), International Physical Activity questionnaire, salt intake Quality of life: EuroQol Process: attitude and knowledge about hypertension Costs:not assessed
Notes	Study/intervention name: COMmunity Pharmacists ASSist for Blood Pressure (COMPASS‐BP) Funding source: KAKENHI Grant in Aid
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Central randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Central randomisation
Baseline outcome measures similar	High risk	Intervention group had lower blood pressure at baseline
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	Differences on several measurements at baseline
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Final analysis used carry forward method to address missing data
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome assessment was blinded
Protection against contamination	Low risk	Cluster design
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not apparent
Other bias	High risk	Only patients who had adhered sufficiently to a strict 2‐week run‐in monitoring period were recruited so the sample may not be representative of less motivated individuals.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Group not blinded