McCusker 2001.

Study characteristics
Methods	Multicentre randomised trial, Canada
Participants	388 older adults (65.2% male).
Interventions	Feedback and notification to primary care and home care teams.   Intervention features Multiple complex feedback (multiple PROMs at multiple times)  PROM(s) used as intervention: Older American Resources and Services scale (OARS), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Constructs measured: Symptoms, Functioning Instrument categories/domains: Domain/Disease specific (mental health, physical health ‐ functional decline)   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting (ED waiting room) and non clinical setting (by telephone) How administered: Interviewer‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Paper   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Unclear How often information fed back: 3 times Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Previous scores
Outcomes	Main outcomes: functional decline (OARS ADL), depressive symptoms (GDS‐SF)
Notes	The study was supported by the Health Transition Fund, Health Canada. The study was conducted from 14th September 1998 to 1st April 1999. Conflicts of interest were not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Patients were randomised to the intervention or usual care group by day of recruitment.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Each of two intervention nurses was assigned to two hospitals and rotated between them on a schedule assigned by the statistician, using blocked randomisation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Research assistants did not inform staff which patients were recruited into the study. However, the intervention nurses coordinated the intervention with other staff, who were therefore aware of certain intervention group patients.
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	High risk	There was a significant difference by study group in the proportion of patients with a family caregiver: 76.4% in the intervention group and 65.2% in the control group.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Of 2,166 eligible patients, 63 (2.9%) declined the screening and 11 could not be found to complete the screening.
Was study protected against contamination	Low risk	Research assistants did not inform staff which patients were recruited into the study.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Not reported