2. Primary outcome ‐ adherence (studies not included in meta‐analyses).

Study	Measure of adherence	Outcome
Al‐Rashed 2002	Objective measure: percentage compliance using home medicines stocks and refill prescriptions between visits 1 and 2	Intervention: 70% (n = 342 medications) vs control 15.8% (n = 328 medications)
Blalock 2010	Subjective measure: Brief Medication Questionnaire (5‐item regimen screen that assesses how medication is used)	Not reported
Bond 2007	Subjective measure: Extended Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS) questionnaire (12 statements about medicine‐taking; score range 12 to 60)	Med (IQR): intervention 59 (57 to 60) vs control 59 (57 to 60)
Cargill 1992	Objective measure: pill count, percentage of pills taken compared to those prescribed	Mean scores: control: 74.5; intervention (group 3): 76.2; intervention (group 2): 74; intervention (group 3): 76.2
Cohen 2011	Objective measure: medication possession ratios	Not clearly reported
Hanlon 1996	Subjective measure: self‐report proportion of medications for which the patient's response agreed with the directions for use on the action profile	Intervention 77.4% (n = 86 people) vs usual care 76.1% (n = 83 people)
Holland 2007	Subjective measure: Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS) scores from 5 (very poor adherence) to 25 (perfect adherence)	Mean (median): 23.74 (25), n = 101 vs 23.55 (25), n = 103
Krska 2001	Subjective measure: pharmaceutical care issues including potential or actual compliance issues, number of baseline issues resolved at 3 months	51 of 74 issues resolved (n = 168) vs 21 of 69 issues resolved (n = 164)
Lim 2004	Subjective measure: self‐reported; patients asked if they 'forgot to take medication as directed'. Then categorised as least compliant (compliant base, not at 2 months), not compliant (not compliant at base or at 2 months), compliant (compliant at 2 months)	Not clearly reported; unadjusted OR 1.50, 90% CI 0.73 to 3.08
Marek 2013	Objective measure: machine recorded or nurse pill count, average percentage of correct doses per month	Not reported for control group MD.2: 98.8% (SD 0.32), planner: 97.4% (SD 5.19)
Pandey 2017	Subjective measure: participants used a logbook to record name and timing of medications taken on a daily basis. Absolute medication adherence calculated as percentage of total prescribed doses that were actually taken each month. 12 months adherence calculated as the mean of each of the 12 monthly measurements. Adherence outcome is % of days covered	Intervention: 91% (n = 9), control: 73% (n = 8)
Pereles 1996	Objective measure: patients discharged with 40 days worth of medication, pill count conducted in home at 40 days. Number of medication errors as a proportion of the total doses administered	Not clearly reported After controlling for age and MMSE ‐ I: 0.045, C: 0.086; P < 0.001
Shimp 2012	Objective measure: medication possession ratios defined as sum of all days of medication supply received during year divided by total numbers of days supply needed ‐ calculated for top 8 drug classes for chronic conditions	Not reported ‐ MPRs were very high for both groups (range 0.84 to 0.96), and no clinically meaningful changes were observed over time for either group. Fewer patients reported missed doses after the intervention
Taylor 2003	Subjective measure: self‐reported number of medication doses missed. Presented as % adherence	Intervention mean 100 vs control mean 88.9 (± SD 6.3)
Volume 2001	Subjective measure: Morisky Adherence, scores 0 to 4; lower scores = better adherence	Mean SD: 0.56 ± 0.75 vs 0.47 ± 0.69; number of participants in each group unclear
Willeboordse 2017	Subjective measure: self‐reported adherence problems	Persistence of adherence problems = OR 0.83 (0.54 to 1.27) (P = 0.38) (unpublished = adherence worsened or persisted: 65 vs 54; adherence improved or remained the same: 143 vs 144)
Winland‐Brown 2000	Objective measure: pill count, average number of missed doses (unclear over what time period). Please note: group 2 vs group 3 was used for comparison of intervention vs usual care; group 1 vs group 2 was used for comparison of intervention vs intervention	Mean: group 1 = 15.1, group 2 = 1.7, control = 19.7

Outcome results presented as intervention group vs usual care group unless otherwise stated.

C: control.

CI: confidence interval.

I: intervention.

IQR: interquartile ratio.

MMSE: Mini‐Mental State Examination.

MPR: medication possession ratio.

OR: odds ratio.

SD: standard deviation.