Edward 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Method of randomisation: allocation by ability of the participant to attend intervention Setting: 2 large hospitals in Melbourne, Australia Follow‐up: 6 months Date it was conducted: 2015 Source of funding: St Vincent’s Private Hospital Melbourne Conflict of interest: the authors declare no conflict of interest
Participants	Inclusion criteria: include: adults (> 18 years) diagnosed with epilepsy. Exclude: people with a history of seizures from causes other than epilepsy, such as acute trauma people with limited English comprehension unable to give informed consent Sample size: 60 (CG 37 and IG 23) only 35 were analysed (18 CG, 17 IG) Age: mean 26 (median 22.3) in IG and 28 (median 23.3) in CG Gender: female 40 (43.5%) in IG and 44 (47.8%) in CG
Interventions	Type of intervention: educational The Self‐Management and Lifestyle Education for Adults Living with Epilepsy education package consist of one 120‐min session delivered face‐to‐face by a clinical nurse specialist in neurosciences. A booklet of the programme’s content was given to each participant. The education package was divided into 4 education modules: Managing epilepsy and medical care; Socialising on a budget; Leading a healthy lifestyle; and Emotional self‐management.
Outcomes	Frequency of seizures Psychological morbidity and HRQoL Subjective well‐being Resilience Adherence measured using MMAS‐8
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation by ability of the participant to attend intervention
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information on concealment was reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information on blinding was reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information on blinding was reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	50% loss to follow‐up in CG and 26% in IG. Little’s 'Missing Completely at Random' test showed no evidence that data were not missing at random
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement