Murphy 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial between participants design, Ireland
Participants	60 clients attending an Irish university counselling service. Mean age of participants was 23.82 and were mainly female (58.2%)
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to the feedback or no feedback groups. Feedback was provided to participants session‐by‐session progress feedback by a therapist that was based on participant scores on the Outcome Rating Scale.   Intervention features Single simple feedback (one PROM at a single time) PROM(s) used as intervention: A.S.I.S.T. for Agencies ‐ a PC‐based version of the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) Constructs measured: Symptoms, Functioning 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): Electronic   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Paper How often information fed back: Once Who information fed back to: Clinicians, Patients Information fed back: Scores, Previous scores, Interpretation guidance, Management recommendations
Outcomes	Main outcome: ORS
Notes	Funding information not reported. 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)	Low risk	Paper states quote: "For randomisation an on‐line random number generator was utilised."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Discrete labelling of patient files.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of intervention not possible to blind patients and personnel.
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	Low risk	T‐tests used to analyse demographics for differences ‐ no significance found.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	High rates of attrition, not adequately addressed
Was study protected against contamination	Low risk	All the clients had numbered files so did not know which group they were allocated
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear whether selective reporting took place