Bastiaansen 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Pragmatic randomised trial, the Netherlands.
Participants	161 patient with a primary diagnosis of depression. Mean age 32 years (12), 54% female.
Interventions	Systematic self‐monitoring in combination with digital feedback reports and face‐to‐face discussion.    Intervention features Multiple simple feedback (one PROM at multiple times)  PROM(s) used as intervention: Routine Outcome Monitoring web application (RoQua) Constructs measured: Symptoms, Functioning, Other (Empowerment) Instrument categories/domains: Generic   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting (e.g. waiting room, office, etc) How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Electronic   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Electronic  How often information fed back: Weekly Who information fed back to: Clinicians, Patients Information fed back: Scores, Previous scores, Interpretation guidance, Management recommendations
Outcomes	Main outcome: change in depression symptom severity. Other outcomes: psychological functioning, empowerment, and costs.
Notes	Funded by grants from the Gratama, Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ, and the Dutch Depression Foundation. The study ran from 1 March 2016 until 31 July 2018. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequential block allocation using randomisation tool.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequentially‐numbered sealed envelopes.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding impossible due to nature of intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Low risk	Baseline measurement identical.
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	Characteristics all similar.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat analysis. Multiple imputation of missing data.
Was study protected against contamination	High risk	Multi‐site study with randomisation at the patient level.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Published protocol.