Curry 2006.

Methods	RCT, 2 arms with individual randomisation (2 sites).
Participants	1000 women  who spoke  English and were 13 to 23 weeks pregnant at the time of recruitment. At the completion of the first assessment, women were randomised to 1 of the 2 groups, 501 to the control  group and 499 to the treatment group. Prenatal Psychosocial Profile test was used to estimate women's stress level. After women at risk of abuse with high level of stress were identified, 106 were in the intervention group and 101 in the control group. Study carried out in two prenatal clinics of a Health Maintenance Organisation in the USA (clinics both served what was described as a geographically, culturally and economically diverse group). Each clinic enrolled 500 women over the period 2001‐2003.   Exclusion criteria: adolescents for whom consent was not available.
Interventions	Experimental intervention: standard care plus video about abuse (watched by < 30%), 24/7 access to Nurse Case Management. Women were contacted by phone by nurse who actively managed their care. The intervention was intended to provide support and was individually tailored to women’s needs. Control/Comparison intervention: standard care which involved written information on community and health services resources for abused women. (Women assessed as being in danger were provided with safety planning and the offer of referral to the clinic social worker.)
Outcomes	Process outcomes (number of contacts, etc). The outcomes reported in this paper related to stress scores on Prenatal Psychosocial Profile measure  (it was not clear what other outcome information was collected).
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	1000 women were enrolled on the study. 106 women in the intervention group and 101 women in the control group were assessed as being at high risk at the first study assessment and results were only provided for the high‐risk group (i.e. approximately 20% of those randomised).  Of the high‐risk groups 99 of the high‐risk intervention group and 92 of the high‐risk control group provided follow‐up data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	It was not clear what outcome data were collected.
Other bias	Unclear risk	There was very little information on methods and there may be further outcome data not published in this paper.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding not described. It is likely that women and staff were aware of group assignment.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding not described. It is likely that outcome assessors were aware of group assignment.