Hassiotis 2001.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Types of interventions: Multidisciplinary  team + Continuity of care
Participants	Clinical problem: Patients with severe psychotic illness with mild intellectual disability (IQ range 51‐70) or borderline IQ (IQ range 71‐85) Setting: London and Manchester, England Sample size (N): I: 50; C: 54 Gender (male): 65% (for entire sample) Age (median): 36.5 years
Interventions	C: Standard mainstream case management:  Case manager is trained mental health professional responsible for direct care and coordinating health and social inputs outside of hospital; member of multidisciplinary team (1 case manager: 30‐35 clients).  I: Intensive mainstream case management.  Same as C but smaller case load (1 case manager: 10‐15 clients).
Outcomes	Mean number of days in hospital for psychiatric reasons Quality of life: Lancashire quality of life profile Burden measures NR
Notes	Results are from larger study including persons without low IQ score. 95% confidence intervals show effect of intervention in persons with lower IQ.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation done by an independent statistical centre.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	A centralised randomisation scheme was used.
Baseline measurement?	Low risk	Baseline measurements were collected and were similar in both groups. Analyses were performed adjusting for baseline levels.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Loss to follow‐up < 90% for objective outcomes; missing data between 2% and 32% for subjective outcomes.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Main outcomes for this sub‐study were objective (costs and days in hospital). Participants and personnel not blinded to allocation.
Proctection against contamination?	Unclear risk	No description of protection again contamination provided in paper.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Main outcomes prespecified by the protocol included in the final report (hospital admission and length of stay; met and unmet needs; patient satisfaction; contact with case managers, cost‐effectiveness; referral and service utilisation). Medication compliance and added cost‐effectiveness not reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	No other biases were reported in the paper.