Tsuyuki 2002.

Methods	Design: RT Groups: intervention group (cholesterol risk management); control group (usual care)
Participants	Pharmacies: 54 Pharmacy workers: pharmacists ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: 675 patients with high risk of vascular events (344 intervention; 331 control) mean age: intervention 64.2 ± 12.2 years; control 64.6 ± 11.3 years % female: intervention 41%; control 38% Setting: both urban and rural Country: Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: training sessions to review the management of heart disease risk factors, especially hyperlipidaemia Delivered by: unclear Type: education Mode of delivery: unclear TDF: knowledge Duration: unclear Pharmacy worker control: not reported ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: patients received a brochure; pharmacists completed a physician contact form that listed the patient's risk factors, medications and any recommendations; patients were encouraged to contact physician; and also received education about cardiovascular risk factors to reinforce adherence Delivered by: pharmacist Type: disease‐management Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face; written materials TDF: knowledge, environment, context, resources Duration: participants seen at 2, 4, 8,12, and 16 weeks; 6 sessions Length of follow‐up: 4 months (post intervention) Pharmacy user control: patients given a copy of the same brochure and general advice only
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: composite of complete lipid panel Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: not assessed Quality of life: SF‐12 Process: satisfaction with pharmacy services scale Costs: cost effectiveness
Notes	Study/intervention name: the Study of Cardiovascular Risk Intervention by Pharmacists (SCRIP) Funding source: University of Alberta Hospital Foundation, Merck Frossst Canada Inc, SCRIP study Tsuyuki 1999, Simpson 2001, and Simpson 2004 (cited under Tsuyuki 2002) also refer to this study.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Block randomisation stratified by pharmacy, computer‐generated sequence
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Block size for randomisation was not revealed to ensure allocation concealment
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	Baseline scores controlled for in analyses
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	Baseline scores controlled for in analyses
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low attrition, balanced across groups
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Assessed by pharmacist
Protection against contamination	High risk	Patient‐level of randomisation
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not noted
Other bias	Unclear risk	Pharmacies were highly selected
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unblinded study