Kavanagh 2004.

Methods	Allocation: randomised. Design: single‐centre (3 hospital sites, Royal Brisbane, Logan or Wolston Park). Duration: 12 months. Setting: hospital and community. Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Participants	Diagnosis: 100% DSM‐IV psychotic disorder with a current DSM‐IV substance use disorder (88% alcohol, 76% cannabis, 12% inhalants, 8% cocaine or heroin). N = 25. Age: 17‐31 years, mean: 23 years. Sex: 15 M, 10 F. Ethnicity: 84% Anglo‐Saxon. Inclusion criteria: 16‐35 years, consensus diagnosis of a DSM‐IV psychotic disorder; a current DSM‐IV substance use disorder; < 3 years since the first psychotic episode, less than 3 previous episodes of psychosis, able to converse in English without an interpreter, no diagnosis of developmental disability or amnesic disorder, not currently receiving other treatment for substance abuse, and, not currently taking heroin or methadone.
Interventions	1. Psychosocial intervention: routine care plus Start Over and Survive (SOS). Brief motivational intervention comprising 3 hours of individual treatment over 6‐9 sessions usually completed within 7‐10 days as an inpatient. N = 13. 2. Standard care: comprised pharmacotherapy, access to in‐patient programmes and aftercare involving either case management or general practice consultations. N = 12.
Outcomes	Leaving the study early: lost to evaluation. Substance use: number of participants abstinent or improved on all substances at 12 months.
Notes	ITT analysis.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Permutations table for each site.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Clinician‐/participant‐mediated and participants and personnel not blinded. It is not possible to blind a psychosocial intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Raters blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Lost to follow‐up: 32% (8/25) 1 year. One SC participant had baseline data carried forward as missing data at 3, 6, and 12 month follow‐ups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Pilot study, no protocol. Five SOS participants did not proceed beyond initial rapport building stage so two analyses were done; one with all SOS subjects (n=13) and another one including SOS treated (n=8)
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence other bias occurring.