Tang 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Method of randomisation: random‐number table Setting: an outpatient clinic of a hospital in China Date it was conducted: September 2011‐ March 2013 Follow‐up: 1 year Souce of funding: not reported Conflict of interest: the study authors declare no conflict of interest
Participants	Inclusion/exclusion criteria: people diagnosed with epilepsy, > 16 years of age, took AEDs for > 6 months, and did not take their AEDs at least once over the past 6 months. Sample size: 124 were assigned to education intervention (n = 59) and education and behavioural intervention (n = 65). 56 and 53 participants completed the last assessment of all measures in education and behavioural IG and education only respectively. Age: mean age was 31 years (SD 13.0) in education and behavioural IG and 30 years (SD 11.6) in education only group Gender: men 49% in education and behavioural IG and 59% in education only group
Interventions	Type of intervention: mixed Study defines 2 IGs: the medication education group (group 1) and the medication education with behavioural IG (group 2). Group 1 was initially provided with medication education in the form of oral education and written materials, and this education was reinforced by monthly calls from the pharmacist over the next 6 months. The behavioural intervention provided to group II consisted of a modified medication schedule which was based on cue–dose training therapy
Outcomes	Primary outcome(s) measured: adherence It was assessed by using MMAS‐4 Secondary outcome(s) measured: seizure control, knowledge of AEDs, QoL, number of participants who missed a dose of their AEDs
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was performed using a random‐number table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
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	Similar reasons for missing outcome data were reported between groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient rationale or evidence to permit judgement