Amble 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Multisite randomised trial, Norway
Participants	377 adult patients with moderate to severe dysfunction in and outpatient in Norwegian naturalistic psychiatric setting. mean age 35.8 years (SD: 11.66, Range: 18‐65), 68% female
Interventions	All patients were asked to online fill out the OQ‐45 prior to each session. Both patients and physicians in the intervention arm received feedback about their OQ‐45 outcome.   Intervention features Multiple simple feedback (one PROM at multiple times) PROM(s) used as intervention: The Outcome Questionnaire‐45.2 Constructs measured: Symptoms, Functioning Instrument categories/domains: Domain/Disease specific   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Unclear How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Electronic   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Electronic How often information fed back: Before each session with therapist Who information fed back to: Clinicians, Patients Information fed back: Scores, Interpretation guidance
Outcomes	Main outcomes: number of sessions; proportion of signal cases Other outcomes: recovery rate (OQ‐45 score)
Notes	Funding information not stated. The study ran from June 2010 until September 2013. No conflicts of interest were reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Patients randomised in blocks of 8 and by gender
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Patients notified of their status.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible due to study design (crossed design; study looking at feedback).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of the intervention blinding of outcomes not possible: PROM used for feedback also used to assess outcome, patients were aware they received the intervention.
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Low risk	Table 2 provided similar outcome measurements for the first scores
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	Table 1 provided the characteristics across the clinics and there were big differences between the number of feedback sessions, gender breakdown and other characteristics
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	There was no discussion on missing data.
Was study protected against contamination	High risk	No blinding.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	None apparent.