Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomization was performed via adaptive randomization procedures. Adaptive randomization can ensure better balance between groups in small and moderate sized studies than strict randomization, by continually adjusting the probability of assignment to either group, depending on existing group assignment.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	The allocation algorithm was concealed from both the participants and the research staff.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)	High risk	Blinding of participants and personnel was not possible due to the nature of the intervention and study design.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)	High risk	Several aspects of the study prohibited blinding, including the nature of the administered questionnaires (detailed housing history and service use), location of participant interviews (some participants elected to be interviewed at their place of residence)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	No evidence of incomplete outcome data provided
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No evidence of reporting outcomes selectively is provided
Other bias	Low risk	No other potential risk of biases