Park 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: multi‐centre, open‐label, parallel randomised controlled trial in Korea Duration: 26 weeks Setting: secondary care
Participants	Population: 44 adults recruited in pulmonary medicine outpatient clinics Baseline characteristics: mean age 67.9 years, male: 79%, FEV1 (% predicted): 65, FEV/FVC ratio: 64.1, mean pack years of smoking 17.6, GOLD stage I/II: 78.6%, GOLD stage III: 21.4%; exacerbation‐related hospitalisations in the last 12 months: 6; exacerbation‐related ED visits in the last 12 months: 4; ethnicity: Korean; cognitive function: NR Inclusion criteria: aged 45+ years, COPD diagnosis GOLD stage I, II, or III, own a smartphone and could text messages, able to communicate Exclusion criteria: diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder, were hospitalised and discharged within 8 weeks due to a COPD exacerbation, < 93% oxygen saturation in a stable state, < 85% oxygen saturation after 6MWD, severe respiratory symptoms in a stable state, PR within past 12 months, another disease that made PA/exercise difficult, used assistive devices to walk or had balance problems
Interventions	Measurements taken at baseline and 6 months follow‐up. Treatment arms: Smartphone application‐based self‐management programme Usual care
Outcomes	Self‐efficacy (self‐care, SEMCD) Quality of life (PCS and MCS ‐ physical and mental component sub scales, MOS social support survey, CRQ‐mastery) Hospital utilisation (ED, hospitalisation, outpatient) Symptoms (UCSD‐SOB, POMS) Impact on health behaviour (6MWD, endurance duration/minutes per week, sedentary/light/vigorous physical activity % time, daily step count) Participant satisfaction
Notes	Funding: National Research Foundation of Korea Other identifiers: NRF‐2014R1A1A1037712
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation sequence generated using computer software
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about allocation concealment process
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label study, neither researcher nor participants blinded to intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Paper states that the non‐blinded interventionist is the same as the outcome assessor
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low attrition (1/23 in experimental group and 1/21 in control group)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Not able to find protocol to compare reporting plan.
Other bias	Low risk	None detected.