Abhyankar 2010.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Data	Setting: university, UK. 30 participants were women students and staff aged over 18 years on the university email list
Comparisons	Investigated the use of trial information with clarification of values Intervention A: study information plus implicit values clarification task (look at info) Intervention B: study information plus implicit and explicit values clarification task (look at info and engage with it by making ratings of what is important to you) Comparator: routine information
Outcomes	Willingness to take part in a hypothetical trial
Notes
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Random Sequence generation ok?	Unclear	Insufficient detail in paper to be sure what was done
Allocation concealment?	Unclear	Uncertain if the random numbers list was open and so investigators could in principle influence allocation
Blinding of participants and personnel ok?	Unclear	Linked to qualitative work; possible that investigators could influence quantitative work through qualitative work and they know allocation by this stage (if not before).
Blinding of outcome assessment ok?	Unclear	Willingness to take part is self‐report; not clear what participants were told beforehand, which could influence what they report
Incomplete outcome data handled ok?	Yes	Adequate
Free of selective reporting?	Yes	Recruitment reported, and this is the only outcome needed for review.
Was the study free of other bias?	No	Trial is hypothetical so outcome is just a proxy for real decision
Overall bias?	Yes	High risk of bias