Wu 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT    Duration of study: June 2011 to June 2015
Participants	Country: China  Income classification: upper‐middle income   Geographical scope: urban  Healthcare setting: participants’ homes  Mental health condition: schizophrenia  Population  1. Age: 18 to 59 years   2. Gender: both  3. Socioeconomic background: not specified   4. Inclusion criteria (including threshold cutoff score of measurement tool)  a. Stable chronic schizophrenia patients with disease > 12 months with positive and negative symptoms at time of diagnosis  b. Living with family carer  c. Receiving continuing care by community health centre  5. Exclusion criteria  a. Presence of serious physical comorbidity
Interventions	Stated purpose: to determine the influence of Orem self‐care theory combined with collaborative care intervention on community‐based rehabilitation of patients with stable mental illness who have returned to their families  INTERVENTION (n = 68)  Name: Orem self‐care theory model combined with collaborative care intervention   Delivered by: multi‐disciplinary team of PHPs Title/name of PW and number: doctors, nurses, and therapists ‐ number not specified  1. Selection: not specified   2. Educational background: not specified   3. Training: all trained; no details given   4. Supervision: by manager  Intervention details: therapist performed counselling and corrected behaviour of both carers and patients. Nurse performed self‐care assessment and phone interviews of both carers and patients. Doctors issued medication to patients. Doctor and nurse with/without therapist performed home visits   1. Duration/frequency: phone interviews twice a month, 15‐ to 30‐minute home visits once a month   2. Content of intervention: comprised medication, counselling, evaluation of self‐care, home visits. Self‐care model involved needs evaluation, functional evaluation, psychological evaluation, beliefs and capability to handle stress, and was based on individual needs, teaching and demonstration of self‐care techniques. Home visits involved practice and immediate feedback. Participants were guided to participate in social activities or to work if capable, and their progress monitored. Participants were encouraged to express themselves, and their families were encouraged to treat them respectfully and to refrain from expressing annoyance and resentment. Participants were encouraged whenever they made incremental progress in their work ability  CONTROL (n = 68) Nurse‐led usual community psychiatric care, comprising at least 3 monthly phone interview and outpatient visits in which a 17‐item “Serious mental disorder patient record” is filled, with referral to a doctor when necessary  CO‐INTERVENTIONS: nil
Outcomes	Patients  1. Self‐Care ADL  2. Instrumental ADL  3. WHOQOL‐BREF Physical health domain, Psychological domain, Social Relationships domains, and Environment domain  4. Relapse  5. Re‐admission 6. Compliance with daily life activities#  7. Medicine adherence#  Carers  Nil  Process/health workers Nil  Economic outcomes  Nil  (asterisk for study's primary outcomes; star: outcomes that we have not reported in this review)  Time point post intervention: 0 months
Notes	Article in Chinese Source of funding: Guangzhou City Yuexiu District  Notes on validation of instruments (screening and outcomes): validated  Additional information: declaration of interest ‐ none Handling the data: as per footnotes in data and analysis  Prospective trial registration number: nil
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation based on patients' case numbers. it is not clear whether this was a random sequence or sequential
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: allocation performed by study team at the start of the study, but concealment was not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Yen ‐ unclear: blinding was not stated explicitly in the paper Nadja ‐ unclear: no information
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) all outcomes	High risk	No form of blinding was described in this article
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Low risk	Baseline outcomes are similar in all tables
Baseline characteristics similar?	Unclear risk	Groups were comparable in terms of age and gender; no other characteristics were compared
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Efficacy data	Low risk	No attrition according to the paper
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Safety data (e.g. adverse events)	Low risk	Adverse events are reported
Protection against contamination	Low risk	Intervention performed by multi‐disciplinary team not involved in treatment of control group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Study protocol is not available
Other bias	Low risk	No comments