Young 2012.

Methods	Study design: 3‐month parallel RCT Setting: 11‐county region in north central Wisconsin, USA
Participants	Population: 98 participants were randomised to home telemonitoring (49) or to control (49) Baseline characteristics Mean age (SD): monitoring 45.4 (16.8); control 43.7 (14) % male: monitoring 26.5; control 20.4 Inclusion criteria: participation in Community Health Access (a charity programme sponsored by the Marshfield Clinic and supported by the FHC) or FHC programmes (federally funded programmes to assist underserved, uninsured and underinsured individuals in the northern Wisconsin area), 19 years of age or older, English speaking, receipt of ≥ 1 asthma medication(s) dispensed in the 6‐month period ending January 31, 2009, diagnosis of asthma Exclusion criteria: enrolment in the FHC Pharmacy medication auto‐refill programme
Interventions	Intervention: telephone consultation from pharmacists regarding asthma self management and medication use. Five pharmacists incorporated the intervention into their usual practice Control: usual care, which included mail receipt of a prescription refill with written medication use instructions
Outcomes	Asthma Control Test, Patient Activation Measure, Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. Measured at 3‐month endpoint and at 6‐month follow‐up
Notes	Funding: Grant 1UL1RR025011 from the Clinical & Translational Science Award programme of the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomised by the data manager. No details of how the sequence was generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Research assistants then forwarded participant contact information to a data manager for random assignment to the intervention or control group. Data manager forwarded intervention group participants’ contact information to the FHC Pharmacy Manager for allocation to pharmacists
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcomes	Low risk	It would not have been possible to hide allocation from participants and personnel, but it is unlikely that this would have introduced bias for objective outcomes (e.g. number of people having exacerbations)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Subjective outcomes such as quality of life and symptom scales filled in by participants or personnel may have been subject to performance bias
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Research assistants and researchers were blinded to allocation of participants to intervention and control groups
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Dropout was balanced between groups (˜ 15% in both groups)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No trial registration, but no evidence of selective reporting in the paper
Other bias	Low risk	None noted

ACT = Asthma Control Test

ACQ = Asthma Control Questionnaire

AQLQ = Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire

CSQ = Client Satisfaction Questionnaire

ED = emergency department

KASE‐AQ = Knowledge, Attitude and Self‐efficacy Asthma Questionnaire

NR = not reported

PAQLQ = Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire

PEF = peak expiratory flow

RCT = randomised controlled trial