Mazonson 1996.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial, USA
Participants	573 adult patients with depression or anxiety.
Interventions	Patient‐reported mental health information was fedback to clinicians.   Intervention features Single complex feedback (multiple PROMs at a single time) PROM(s) used as intervention: Anxiety and Depression Symptom Checklist (SCL‐90‐R), Functioning and well‐being measures (SF‐36), Diagnostic Interview schedule (DIS) Constructs measured: Symptoms, Functioning Instrument categories/domains: Generic, 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): Paper   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Paper How often information fed back: Once Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Previous scores, Interpretation guidance, Management recommendations
Outcomes	Main outcomes: notation in chart, mental health referral, psychotropic medications. Other outcomes: any hospitalisation, any office visit
Notes	The study was supported by Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Mich. The study period was not reported. Conflicts of interest were not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomly assigned
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Patients were assiigned based on the assignment of the primary care physicians practice group
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Physician practices rather than patients were randomised
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	Adjusted for analysis
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not clearly reported
Was study protected against contamination	Low risk	To minimise contamination physicians and physician extenders were randomised to intervention or control by physician‐call group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	None reported