Sullivan‐Bolyai 2010.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised controlled trial, usual care control.
Participants	60 mothers of children aged 1‐12yrs newly diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes (32 intervention, 28 control; 30 intervention and 21 control at follow‐up).
Interventions	Trained parent mentors delivering initial face‐to‐face or home visits, followed by further contacts as agreed over following 12 months. Participants had on average 5 contacts (range, 1‐25) with an average duration of 63mins (range 5‐195). Including both face‐to‐face and phone contacts (phone utilised most often). Mentors were matched to participants where possible and received weekly supervision by the study author. Control participants had access to a parent contact (not trained; very few control participants made contact (2 in total).
Outcomes	Primary: Parent concerns and worries about diabetes, parent confidence in caring for child, perceived impact of illness on family, perceived amount of care/helpfulness of father involvement, use of social support Banion diabetes‐related concerns: Limited details available on this measure. Higher score indicates greater concern Worry scale: Limited details available on this measure. Higher scores indicate higher worry. Parental Confidence Scale: Limited details available on this measure. Higher score indicates higher levels of confidence. Impact on the Family Scale: Measures parental perception of impact of child's chronic illness on family. A 24 item self‐report 4‐point Likert‐type measure (1‐4). Items are summed to reach total and range from 4‐96. Higher scores indicate greater impact Stein 1980. Irey's Social Support Inventory: 5 yes/no items, rating perceptions of social support. Scores summed (yes=1, no=0) and range from 0‐5. Higher score indicates higher support Ireys 1996.
Notes	Authors contacted for further details on Irey's social support inventory. No further details available. Qualitative data available. Family function outcomes could be included in meta‐analysis, but measures of confidence and self‐esteem could not be converted to a form suitable for inclusion in meta‐analysis.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random sequence generated by 'statistical permutation'.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unable to blind due to nature of intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Attrition well described; participants who were less educated, divorced or separated, and working full time were significantly more likely to not complete data collection
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes described in method reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias apparent