Blonigen 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Pilot randomised trial, USA
Participants	30 patients entering a 90‐day residential substance use disorder treatment program. Mean age 49 (range 26‐64) years, 93.3% male.
Interventions	Patients completed assessments of sociodemographics, treatment history, substance‐ related functioning, and personality and worked with an Intervention Co‐ordinator (IC) to work on assessment questions. At patient‐centred feedback session (13.8 mean days after treatment entry) they received a summary of their personality profile and recommendation to help address problematic behavior tendencies. At 1‐month follow‐up sessions patient completed assessment regarding their adjustment to the residential program. response time: 13.8 mean days via face‐to‐face   Intervention features Multiple complex feedback (multiple PROMs at multiple times)  PROM(s) used as intervention: The Brief Addiction Monitor, The NEO PI‐R measure of normal‐range personality, The Assessment Questionnaire (AQ) measuring satisfaction with the patient‐centred assessment process. Constructs measured: Functioning, Other (Satisfaction) Instrument categories/domains: Domain/Disease specific (Mental health)   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting (e.g. waiting room, office, etc) How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Unclear   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Unclear How often information fed back: At feedback session and one month follow up Who information fed back to: Clinicians, Patients Information fed back: Scores, Interpretation guidance, Management recommendations
Outcomes	Main outcome: assessment Questionnaire (AQ) Other outcomes: length of stay in the program and whether or not patient dropped out of the program
Notes	The study was supported by Career Development Award‐2, VA Office of Research and Development (Clinical Sciences R&D); Locally Initiated Project (LIP13DB1), VA Palo Alto Centre for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i). The study period was not reported. The authors declared no competing interesting.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Numbers randomly added to an excel spreadsheet
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear 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	High risk	No information on baseline measurements
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	None apparent
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No discussion on missing data
Was study protected against contamination	Unclear risk	No discussion on whether the clinician delivering the intervention interacted with the control group patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcome measurements mentioned in methods section was reported in results