Weinberger 2002.

Methods	Design: cluster‐RT Groups: Intervention: pharmaceutical care program (PCP) for asthma or COPD Control: peak flow monitoring control group (PFMCG) usual care control group (UCCG)
Participants	Pharmacies: 36 (12 pharmacies per group) Pharmacy worker: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: 1113 patients with asthma or COPD (447 PCP; 363 PFMCG; 303 UCCG) mean age: UCCG: 62.2 ± 11.9 years; PCP: 62.2 ± 11.0 years; PFMCG: 62.9 ± 10.3 years % female: UCCG: 67.4%; PCP: 63.5%; PFMCG: 66.2% Setting: urban Country: Indianapolis, USA
Interventions	Pharmacy worker‐directed intervention: included an overview of pharmaceutical care, orientation to study, interpretation and use of data, measuring PEF, resources. Delivered by: "Investigators representing various backgrounds’ Type: education Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face Duration: unclear Pharmacy worker control: pharmacists received 4‐hour training, but were excluded from PCP ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user‐directed intervention: patients received individualised handouts based on problems associated with specific clinical data stored on the computer Delivered by: pharmacist Type: behaviour change Mode of delivery: individual face‐to‐face; written materials TDF: knowledge, environment, context, resources Duration: unclear Length of follow‐up: 1 year (possibly at end of intervention period) Pharmacy user control: usual care
Outcomes	Pharmacy worker: not assessed ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Pharmacy user: Clinical: PEFR Psychological health: not assessed Behavioural: medication compliance Quality of life: disease‐specific health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) Process: patient satisfaction (validated) Costs: breathing‐related emergency department or hospital visits
Notes	Study/intervention name: none given Funding source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Health Services Research and Development Service, Department of Veteran Affairs (grant 5 R01 HS09083) Weinberger 2001 (cited under Weinberger 2002) also refers to the same study.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Used random number chart
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "interviewers, blinded to study group assignment, obtained informed consent and conducted baseline interviews. After completing the interview, the laptop computer used to administer interviews revealed the patient’s study group assignment.” At that time, interviewers distributed peak flow meters as appropriate.
Baseline outcome measures similar	Low risk	Differences between groups controlled for in analyses
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	Differences between groups controlled for in analyses
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Dropouts had worse breathing problems at 12 months
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Interviewers blinded
Protection against contamination	Low risk	Cluster randomised
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not noted
Other bias	High risk	Fidelity may have been low, as pharmacists only implemented protocol approximately 50% of the time
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Pharmacists aware of groupings