Hoeper 1984.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial, USA
Participants	1452 adult patients from a multi‐speciality group practice Mean age unknown Female 58.4%
Interventions	Providing the results of GHQ mental disorder scores to the physician.   Intervention features Single simple feedback (one PROM at a single time) PROM(s) used as intervention: GHQ‐28 Constructs measured: Symptoms, Functioning Instrument categories/domains: Domain/Disease specific (mental health)   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Paper   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Paper How often information fed back: Once Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Interpretation guidance
Outcomes	Main outcome: effect of mental disorder screening with GHQ on the rate of detection of mental disorders
Notes	The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health (contract 278‐79‐0013). Patients were recruited between 29th Oct 1979, and 1st April 1980.Conflicts of interest were not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method not stated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible due to study design (disclosure of questionnaire to physician versus not)
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	None apparent
Baseline characteristics similar	Unclear risk	Paper states quote "There were only slight sociodemographic differences between groups."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Was study protected against contamination	High risk	Physicians saw participants from both the intervention and control groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Paper states quote: "analyses of several characteristics thought to influence physician diagnosis were done."