Bender 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: parallel, individually randomised controlled trial Duration: endpoint at 104 weeks Setting: recruited from Kaiser Permanente Colorado ‐ 18 primary care and 2 special care and 2 hospitals; trial carried out in the United States
Participants	Population: 1187 children were randomised to receive speech recognition reminders for overdue medication (n = 590) or usual care (n = 597) Age: range from 3 to 12 years. Mean age in reminders group was 8.2 years; SD: 0.13. Mean age in usual care group was 8.1 years; SD: 0.13. Proportion of male participants: reminders group was 67.3% male; usual care group was 67.1% male Proportion of white ethnic participants: reminders group was 43.3% white; usual care group was 44.1% white Inclusion criteria: persistent asthma; 1 or more ICS script in last 6 months; enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Colorado for 1 year prior Exclusion criteria: life‐threatening co‐morbidity; sibling enrolled in study; parent decline; ICS prescribed to betaken intermittently or as required; medication not bought at KPCO pharmacy Percentage withdrawn: Withdrawal from reminders group was 23.39%; withdrawal from usual care group was 25.13% Allowed medication: none recorded Disallowed medication: none recorded
Interventions	Reminders group: speech recognition reminders for overdue medication group with 1 to 3 calls depending on whether patient has overdue medication or historically has. Two‐way interaction with patient. No adherence feedback. No co‐interventions used (one digital component involved only). Not a theory‐based intervention. No in‐person component. Usual care group: usual care
Outcomes	Primary: Adherence (ICS proportion of days covered over 24 months) Secondary: Beta‐agonist use, oral steroid use, asthma‐related primary health care visits, ED visits, hospitalisations, after‐hours visits on weekends or weekdays, asthma related visits, parent satisfaction questionnaire
Notes	Type of publication: peer‐reviewed Funding: not stated COI: none
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	States that it was randomised but no information about process
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear what method of concealment was used
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No blinding described but unlikely to have influenced outcome
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No blinding described but unlikely to impact the outcome
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat analysis performed
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol available; results specified as per methods