Item	Yes/no	Comment
1. Is the study population clearly described?	Yes	Population were stroke services and stroke patients. Inclusion criteria described for both. Loss to follow‐up described at set time points.
2. Are competing alternatives clearly described?	Yes	3 arms of study (control, SVP and SVP + implementation programme) described in detail.
3. Is a well‐defined research question posed in answerable form?	No	Authors stated 1 of the economic study aims as: to "describe the costs associated with the ICONS SVP and explore the data for evidence of potential cost‐effectiveness" – clear research question on economic outcomes not stated.
4. Is the economic study design appropriate to the stated objective?	Yes	Cluster randomised trial using cost– utility analyses and cost‐effectiveness approaches
5. Is the chosen time horizon appropriate to include relevant costs and consequences?	Yes	Authors stated "for the purpose of this exploratory trial the time horizon for the cost analysis will be from admission to the stroke unit to 52 weeks post stroke," this is a sufficient time for relevant costs to be evaluated.
6. Is the actual perspective chosen appropriate?	Yes	Perspective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services taken.
7. Are all important and relevant costs for each alternative identified?	Yes	Costs considered for in‐hospital resources (staff training, internal facilitators, staff performing programme) posthospital resources (community health and social service input, admissions).
8. Are all costs measured appropriately in physical units?	Yes	Data collection forms constructed to record data, e.g. amount of time spent in online training, facilitator number of site visits and travel costs. Also a postal questionnaire designed for self‐completion was sent to patients and carers. The postal questionnaire was used with patients to determine community health and social service input.
9. Are costs valued appropriately?	Yes	Authors stated: "In order to value the cost of the time performing the programme we made estimates of the cost for a minute of staff time"
10. Are all important and relevant outcomes for each alternative identified?	Yes	QoL and QALY calculation used via EQ‐5D and a continence‐specific QoL measure the I‐QOL. ISI and ICIQ‐SF also used to measure urinary frequency and symptom‐free days.
11. Are all outcomes measured appropriately?	Yes	The EQ‐5D is a validated tool for use with stroke survivors to measure QoL.
12. Are outcomes valued appropriately?	Yes	Indirect utility assessment using EQ‐5D.
13. Is an incremental analysis of costs and outcomes of alternatives performed?	Yes	ICER calculated.
14. Are all future costs and outcomes discounted appropriately?	Yes	Time horizon limited to 52 weeks, discounting only necessary if time horizon > 1 year.
15. Are all important variables, whose values are uncertain, appropriately subjected to sensitivity analysis?	Yes	Sensitivity analysis performed, variables included cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year gained and cost per symptom‐free day .
16. Do the conclusions follow from the data reported?	Yes	Due to study being exploratory, authors do not draw firm conclusions regarding cost‐effectiveness.
17. Does the study discuss the generalisability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups?	No	Not discussed.
18. Does the article indicate that there is no potential conflict of interest of study researcher(s) and funder(s)?	Yes	Stated "Conflict of interest: none declared."
19. Are ethical and distributional issues discussed appropriately?	No	Not discussed.
CBS: Carer Burden Scale; EQ‐5D: European Quality of Life‐5 Dimensions; EQ‐5D‐3L: 3‐level version of EQ‐5D; GHQ‐12: General Health Questionnaire‐12; I‐QOL; Incontinence Quality of Life; iCaPPS: integrated Care Pathway for Post Stroke; ICER: incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio; ICIQ‐SF: International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form; ISI: Incontinence Severity Index; NEADL: Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living; QALY: quality‐adjusted life year; QoL: quality of life; SCC: stroke care co‐ordinator; SLT: speech and language therapy; SVP: systematic voiding programme; TRACS: Training Caregivers After Stroke.