Campbell 2013.

Methods	Study design: CRCT Data collection: Use of the electronic EAS measured by "number of web page hits collected via a software program that tracked cluster‐specific IP addresses in batches" (p. 14, para 1) Peer‐rated EBP behavior was measured using the GAS (p. 12, para 2) Unit of analysis issues: none suspected due to randomization process; no clusters were lost; baseline characteristics of clusters were documented and differences were not significant
Participants	Participants: allied health practitioners: occupational therapists: IG 23 (31%); CG 26 (42%); physiotherapists: IG 16 (22%); CG 16 (26%); speech pathologist: IG 20 (27%); CG 16 (25%); psychologist: IG 7 (10%); CG 1 (2%); social workers: IG 7 (10%); CG 3 (5%) Total number randomized: 135; IG 73 (39 Region A; 34 Region B); CG 62 (29 Region C; 33 Region D) Clusters: 4 based on 4 regions Baseline characteristics of participants: Age: not reported Gender: not reported Years of experience: < 2 years: IG 11 (15%); CG 16 (26%) 2‐4 years: IG 10 (14%); CG 12 (19%) 5‐9 years: IG 25 (34%); CG 14 (23%) > 10 years: IG 27 (37%); CG 20 (32%) Setting: community‐based cerebral palsy services Country: Australia
Interventions	Description of the intervention: Educational session, multifaceted: session incorporated a variety of pedagogic approaches ‐ didactic presentation of information, interaction among participants, role play, and reflection. Content of the session: using the EAS interface; education on levels of evidence (systematic reviews, trials, etc.), and how to apply information from the EAS to clinical decision‐making. A knowledge broker was available during the course of the study to mentor participants Educational material, provision of: the EAS was provided to participants Organizational interventions: policy changes were implemented and included: staff were paid for the time spent learning about EBP; staff permitted dedicated time to learn/practice EBP; work forms, such as client documentation forms, were edited to include reminders to use EAS; outcome measures were embedded in staff workflow; and staff were mentored by knowledge brokers Type of intervention: Educational sessions ‐ group and mentoring Education material Organizational interventions Study period: June 2009 to August 2009 Intervention delivery periods: at beginning of intervention period, 2 days' training; 8 weeks later, 1 day' training Duration of intervention: 3 days Data collection time: not clear, e.g. "took place before and after the workshops" (p. 8, para 1) Comparison: 3‐day workshop structured in the same way as the intervention, but subject matter was communication and coaching skills. CG were not notified or offered paid time to implement learning undertaken in their workshop
Outcomes	EAS utilization (measured by number of web page hits collected via a software program that tracked cluster‐specific IP addresses in batches)
Notes	Baseline characteristics similar: at baseline, participant attributes were mostly comparable between groups, the exception being prior EBP education attendance (88% for IG compared to 66% for CG) (unclear risk) Baseline measure of outcomes: no baseline measures of outcome (unclear risk)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	135 allied health practitioners from 4 regions were cluster randomized (4 clusters) to IG or CG. "An independent officer not associated with the trial, used computer generated random numbers, to create four opaque envelopes based upon simple randomisation. Four geographically distinct clusters were randomised to the intervention or control group" (p. 7, para 2)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Four geographically distinct clusters were randomised to the intervention or control group. Cluster randomisation was chosen to reduce risk of contamination that may have occurred if individuals working at the same site were randomised to different interventions" (p. 7‐8)
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The CG, which received communication not knowledge translation/searching workshop "was not informed about the EAS (Evidence Alert System), paid EBP (Evidence Based Practice) time, knowledge brokers or mentoring until the end of the trial [which were part of the intervention groups exposure]" (p. 12, para 1) "Blinding was judiciously applied wherever pragmatically possible, resulting in a single blinded trial. This included: (1) independent evaluator blinding to group allocation and phase of the trial when scoring outcome data; (2) partial participant and facilitator blinding to the specific EBP behaviour of interest to the investigators. Participants and workshop facilitators were clearly aware of the content of the workshops, however were not aware of which intervention (knowledge translation or communication skills) was of interest to researchers. Fidelity of the evaluator blinding was not formally investigated" (p. 14) Web hit data collection was concealed from participants (p. 14, para 3)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	For this review, we were interested in use of EHI, and since it was tracked automatically, by IP address associated with clusters, we rate attrition bias as low For other reviewers, this bias may be considered high because of lost data as follows: peer assessment of EBP behavior for IG: at baseline, data were provided for 52/73 participants; at 8 weeks' post intervention, data were provided for 44/73 participants. For CG: at baseline 43/62 participants; at 8 weeks post intervention 42/62 participants
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The authors reported on the outcomes described in the Trial Registration record: www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=336741