Fureman 1997.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Data	Setting: university, USA. 188 participants in the Risk Assessment Project (injection drug users)
Comparisons	Investigated the effect of different trial information methods Enhanced video on an HIV vaccine trial plus 1‐hour pamphlet presentation (5 minutes pre‐test, 26 minutes of video, 10 minutes to review pamphlet, research assistant initiated question and answer session, post‐test questionnaire, survey at 1 month. This was compared to standard half‐hour pamphlet‐only presentation (5 minutes pre‐test, 10 minutes to review trial information pamphlet; research assistant initiated question and answer session, post‐test questionnaire, survey at 1 month
Outcomes	Willingness to take part in hypothetical trial (expressed as a score on a willingness scale)
Notes
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Random Sequence generation ok?	Unclear	Randomisation mentioned but no details
Allocation concealment?	Unclear	See above
Blinding of participants and personnel ok?	Unclear	Not clear how much participants were told before the study, not clear what the research assistant running sessions knew about randomisation; probably knew that video was the intervention. Assistant could in principle influence post‐test questionnaire responses of participants because these were done during the session
Blinding of outcome assessment ok?	Unclear	Outcome not objective and not clear what influence lack of blinding might have had on this
Incomplete outcome data handled ok?	Yes	Adequate
Free of selective reporting?	Yes	Willingness to take part outcome presented, which is all the review needs
Was the study free of other bias?	No	Hypothetical trial
Overall bias?	Yes	High risk of bias