Garrett 1994.

Methods	STUDY DESIGN: Parallel group randomised controlled trial LOCATION, NUMBER OF CENTRES: New Zealand, deprived area of Auckland. DURATION OF STUDY: 9 months Outcome assessors and the child's doctor were blinded
Participants	N SCREENED: 980 N RANDOMISED: 500 (treatment: 251; control: 249) N COMPLETED: 451 (500 for hospital data) M = 210 F = 290 MEAN AGE: Range 2 to 55 years BASELINE DETAILS: 11% had hospital admission, 28% ED visit, and 41% had an acute attack requiring GP care in previous 9 months INCLUSION CRITERIA: 2 to 55 years, attending ED for treatment of acute asthma and lived within catchment area of hospital, able to answer questionnaire in English, intended to reside in South Auckland for next 9 months, and could be contacted within 5 days of ED attendance EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Not stated
Interventions	EDUCATION GROUP: Community education centre run by a nurse and 3 community health workers; information; self‐management skills; patients referred to their GP if changes in medication required and/or to obtain a written action plan if they didn't have one. Patient's social, financial needs and cultural beliefs assessed and addressed within programme. Patient plus other members of household included if possible; delivered as soon as possible after attendance at ED Duration: when all education topics completed, median number of interactions was 3 (range 1 to 10). Time period not stated. CONTROL GROUP: Usual care TREATMENT PERIOD: Not stated FOLLOW‐UP PERIOD: 9 months
Outcomes	Hospital admissions, ED visits, acute attacks requiring GP care, and days lost from work or school ‐ measured for 9 months from beginning of intervention. Cough during day (for 2 to 14 year olds), PEF variability, breathlessness with exercise, night awakenings ‐ measured for 1 week before 9 month interview. Knowledge, inhaler technique, quality of life (data not given) ‐ measured at 9 months after beginning of intervention. Time period of intervention not stated so not sure about overlap between intervention and measurement of outcomes.
Notes	About 50% to 60% of data refers to children
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation?	Low risk	Computer‐generated random numbers schedule
Allocation concealment?	Low risk	Centrally prepared by person not involved in recruiting participants
Incomplete outcome data addressed? All outcomes	Low risk	Complete set of data for hospital contact outcomes