Yoong 2016.

Methods	Study design: parallel‐group RCT Intervention duration: 6 – 8 weeks Length of follow‐up from baseline: no baseline data collection Differences in baseline characteristics: reported Unit of allocation: Childcare service Unit of analysis: Childcare service
Participants	Service type: Long daycare services Region: NSW, Australia Demographic/socioeconomic characteristics: Not stated Inclusion/exclusion criteria: Long daycare services (centre‐based services typically open ≥ 8 hours/day) located within NSW, Australia, served as the sampling frame. Services were excluded if they did not undertake menu planning on site or where cooks did not understand English sufficiently to complete the survey. Number of services randomised: 77 services Numbers by trial group: n (controls baseline) = n/a n (controls follow‐up) = 39 n (interventions baseline) = n/a n (interventions follow‐up) = 38 Recruitment: Service: 220 services were invited to participate; of these 106 were ineligible to participate, 34 declined to participate and a further 14 could not be contacted. Seventy‐seven consented to participate and were randomly allocated to either the intervention or control condition by a blinded research assistant using a random number function in Microsoft Excel in a 1:1 ratio. Recruitment rate: 68%
Interventions	Number of experimental conditions: 2 (intervention, control) Policies, practices or programmes targeted by the intervention: ‐ Provision of fruit and vegetables on service menu Implementation strategies: Educational materials: Intervention cooks were mailed a two‐page education resource and the menu planning checklist from the Caring for Children resource. Who delivered the intervention: Printed resources were developed by a local health promotion team consisting of dietitians, behavioural scientists and health promotion practitioners. Theoretical underpinning: The content of the material was guided by the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Description of control: The control group received usual care. All services could access the Caring for Children resource online and may have been offered support from their local health promotion staff.
Outcomes	Outcome relating to the implementation of childcare service policies, practices or programmes: Provision of fruit and vegetables: Data collection method: A one‐item question was used to assess the provision of fruit and vegetables on menus. Validity of measures used: This measure was not validated and is likely to result in an overestimation of effect. Outcome relating to cost: not applicable Outcome relating to adverse consequences: not applicable Outcome relating to child diet, physical activity or weight status: not applicable Outcome relating to implementation strategy acceptability, adoption, penetration, sustainability and appropriateness: Penetration: Data collection method: A telephone interview where participants were asked whether they recalled receiving the educational material and, if so, how long ago they received it Validity of measures used: not reported
Notes	The authors acknowledge the funding support of Hunter New England Population Health and Hunter Medical Research Institute.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A random number function in Microsoft Excel was used to generate the random sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Microsoft Excel was used to generate a list of random numbers and could forsee assignment.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Primary outcome of review: Number of fruit and vegetables provided on menu in last week. There was no blinding to group allocation of participants described and this was likely to influence performance.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Primary outcome: Although CATI interviewers were blinded to group allocation, participant self‐report was used. There was no mention that participants were blinded to group allocation and, therefore, the risk of detection bias was high.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Table 2 outlines that there was missing data for two services (2/77 = 3%) and therefore there was a low risk of attrition bias.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The measures reported in the trial registration aligned with those reported in the outcome paper.

^{ABC: Activity Begins in Childhood
 AGHE: Australian Guide to Healthy Eating
 BMI: Body Mass Index
 CATCH EC: Coordinated Approach to Child Health Early Childhood
 CATI: Computer Assisted Telephone Interview
 CCHP: Child Care Health Program
 CDC: Centers for Disease Control
 CHILE: Child Initiative for Lifelong Eating and Exercise
 CHPHSPC: Californian Childcare Health Programme Health and Safety Checklist
 CSPlan: Complex Samples Plan
 DOCC: Diet Observation in Child Care
 DVD: Digital Versatile Disc
 ECE: Early Care and Education
 EPAO: Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation
 EPAO‐SR: Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation Self Report
 HAP: Healthy Apple Program
 HS: Head Start
 IOM: Institute of Medicine
 ICC: Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 
 MPL!: Move, Play, Learn!
 NAPSACC: Nutrition and Physical Activity Self‐Assessment for Child Care
 NC: North Carolina
 OSRAP: Observation System for Recording Activity in Preschools
 PA: Physical Activity
 RCT: Randomised Controlled Trial
 SE: Standard Error
 SFDPH: San Francisco Department of Public Health
 SNAP: Supplementation Nutrition Assistance Program
 SOPLAY: System for Observing Play and Leisure in Youth}

^{TA: Technical Assistant
 TBP:Theory of Planned Behaviour
 TDF: theoretical domains framework
 vs: Versus
 ZBMI: z Body Mass Index}