DiIorio 2011.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial (6 months follow‐up)
Participants	194 people recruited through epilepsy‐based websites and forums, online clinical research matching services, and referrals from healthcare professionals in a large southeastern metropolitan area, USA Mean age of participants was 43 years; 68% were male
Interventions	Intervention: WebEase (Epilepsy Awareness, Support, and Education), an online epilepsy self management programme to assist people with taking medication, managing stress and improving sleep quality Control: waiting list control (control group was put on a waiting list receiving usual care and then received the intervention at a later point in time)
Outcomes	Medication adherence measured by the Medication Adherance Scale (MAS) completed three times over 6 months Sleep quality assessed by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) completed three times over 6 months Epilepsy self management measured using the Epilepsy Self Management Scale (ESMS) completed three times over 6 months Self efficacy measured using the Epilepsy Self Efficacy Scale (ESES) completed three times over 6 months Knowledge about epilepsy measured using the Epilepsy Knowledge Profile (EKP) completed three times over 6 months Quality of life measured using the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Scale‐10 (QOLIE‐10) completed three times over 6 months
Funding	Study funded by a grant from the Emory University Research Committee
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Participants were consecutively assigned to intervention and control groups (after random assignment of the first participant)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Details of allocation concealment were not reported
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Investigators do not report if any of the participants, clinicians or assessors were blinded. The subjective nature of the outcomes measured (all by self reported questionnaire) means this may have introduced bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The drop out rate was 24%. However, investigators conducted a completer vs non‐completer analysis and an intention‐to‐treat analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	All outcomes detailed in the Methods were referred to in the Results, although not all values presented
Other bias	Unclear risk	No details of power calculations or required sample size were reported. Recruitment took place via the Internet which may have appealed to those people who are computer‐literate. There were no baseline differences reported in the comparison of study groups. There was a risk of contamination as the participants could have known each other
Overall risk of bias	Unclear risk	Participants were consecutively assigned to intervention and control groups (after random assignment of the first participant)