Pinnock 2003.

Methods	Study design: pragmatic parallel RCT (duration of study participation varied across participants) Setting: 4 general practices in the UK
Participants	Population: 278 people were randomised to remote telephone check‐up (137) or face‐to‐face check‐up (141) Baseline characteristics: mean age, years (SD): remote 54.6 (17.5); face‐to‐face 56.4 (17.5) % male: remote 41; face‐to‐face 42 % predicted FEV1 (SD): not reported Inclusion criteria: adults with asthma who had requested a prescription for a bronchodilator inhaler in the last 6 months Exclusion criteria: if diagnosis of asthma had been made within the previous year, if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, if communication difficulties made a telephone check‐up impossible, or (at the general practitioner's (GP's) request) for major social or medical reasons.
Interventions	Intervention: telephone check‐up with the asthma nurse. The nurse tried up to 4 times to contact the participants. Control: face‐to‐face check‐ups in the surgery also with the asthma nurse, one invitation was sent in the usual manner. Content of the check‐up was as the nurse deemed appropriate.
Outcomes	Medical reviews, time taken to review participants in each arm, asthma morbidity on the short Q, asthma related quality of life on the mini AQLQ, participant satisfaction, costs
Notes	Funding: originally developed at a General Practice Airways Group research meeting, which was organised by Mark Levy and funded by an educational grant from AstraZeneca. The trial was funded by British Lung Foundation (Grant No P00/9). Additionally, one study author was supported by an NHS R&D national primary care fellowship. ID number(s): N/A
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were centrally randomised in blocks of 10 to ensure that approximately equal numbers of participants were allocated to each study arm.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Centrally randomised" implies that allocation was undertaken independently and concealed.
Blinding of participants and personnel Objective outcomes	Low risk	It would not have been possible to blind participants and personnel to allocation due to the nature of the intervention. However, participants and personnel being aware of group allocation is unlikely to have affected the results for the objective outcomes (exacerbations and adverse events).
Blinding of participants and personnel Subjective outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel being aware of group allocation could have affected their scores on subjective outcomes such as those measured on self‐report scales (ACQ and AQLQ).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	“a researcher, blinded to allocation visited each of the practices and validated a random 20% sample of consultation data and data retrieved from records”. However, the participants and investigators could not be blinded to the interventions and, in most cases, the outcome assessors were not blinded to group allocation either.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The percentage of withdrawals was low and even between groups (5.1 and 4.3% in the remote and face‐to‐face groups respectively).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There was no evidence of selective reporting.
Other bias	Low risk	We did not note any other possible sources of bias.