Goldberg 1997.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel design Number arms: 2 Treatment arm: home‐based therapeutic intervention Control arm: usual care
Participants	Geographical location: USA Setting: inpatient Stroke criteria: unclear. Method of stroke diagnosis: unclear. Time since stroke: on average 2 weeks (treatment group) and 13 weeks (control group) prior to randomisation Inclusion criteria: 1) home to return to and readily identified primary caregiver Exclusion criteria: 1) severe pre‐morbid or co‐morbid conditions sufficient to impact significantly on their capacity to recover from the stroke; 2) residual cognitive or communicative impairment prevent participation in interviews Total number randomised in this study: 55 Number randomised to treatment group: 27 (48% men, median age 72 years, range 65 to 84 years) Number randomised to control group: 28 (55% men, median age 72 years, range 65 to 81 years) Total number included in final analysis: 41 Number included in treatment group for final analysis: 21 Number included in control group for final analysis: 20
Interventions	Treatment: weekly phone contact, monthly home visits; home‐based therapeutic team attend specifically to psychosocial stressors and prevent significant psychosocial problems from accelerating Treatment duration: treatment continued for 1 year Administered by: multidisciplinary team included a psychiatrist, psychologist, recreational therapist, research programme case manager, social worker Supervision: case manager (social worker) Intervention fidelity: not reported Control: usual care, no visits Follow‐up: last follow‐up at 1 year (end of treatment)
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Depression measured using the CES‐D Secondary outcomes Leaving the study early Recurrent stroke
Notes	‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "... subjects were randomized using a random number table to either the experimental group, which received the STAIR program, or to a control group, which did not." pp. 67
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: method of allocation not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "... since the subjects clearly could not be blinded to their own treatment." pp. 67
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "Blinding of the data collector was attempted, although this was difficult to consistently accomplish and maintain, since the subjects clearly could not be blinded to their own treatment."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comments: per protocol analysis reported only. 14/55 participants were not included in the analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: no trial protocol available to compare with the publication
Other bias	Low risk	Comments: there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control group in baseline demographic characteristics