Baker 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Participants: women with breast cancer (N = 450)Age range: 50‐60 Recruitment: 1034 women from patient pools at the three sites were approached for study participation in the two experiments; women were approached for participation in either the current experiment or the companion experiment. Eligibility: standard inclusion criteria were used at all sites: women were >17 years old, able to read and understand English, and were within 2 months of a diagnosis of primary breast cancer or recurrence at the time of recruitment.Country: USA
Interventions	Intervention: multi‐component CHESS info n = 118, CHESS info+support n = 109, Full CHESS n = 111. The first CHESS condition (CHESS Information) received only the Information services; the second condition (CHESS Information and Support) received both the Information and Support services, while the third condition received all three types of CHESS services (Information, Support, and Coaching: Full CHESS). Control: non‐social media (n = 112) Internet Only
Outcomes	Cancer Information Competence, Emotional processing, Functional well‐being, Wisconsin social support scale, Constructs or outcomes that were exploratory in nature (e.g. measures of quality of life comprising physical health system and mobility items), Healthcare competence, Positive coping, Breast cancer concerns, Satisfaction with professional.
Equity	High‐income country. Breast cancer patients
Notes	Means provided with no SD, SE, or confidence intervals. Authors were contacted but reported that these data have been archived.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were randomised via a computer‐generated list.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of personnel	High risk	Research staff informed the patient about the resources to which she had been randomised and asked whether she needed a laptop computer or Internet service.
Blinding of participants	High risk	Research staff informed the patient about the resources to which she had been randomised and asked whether she needed a laptop computer or Internet service.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Outcomes were self‐reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Patient withdrawal rates were low at 8%
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Data collected at 12 months post‐treatment are not reported.
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	The groups did not differ significantly except for income (P = 0.025), with one condition (Information + Support) showing slightly lower incomes than the Full CHESS condition. These differences were not significant when using Shaffer’s correction for multiple tests
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Unclear risk	Patient outcomes not measured prior to the intervention
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Not reported