Thom 1999.

Methods	Study design: RCT Informed consent: Insufficient data Allocation procedure: Unclear if blind/secure Protection against contamination: Unclear Outcome assessors blind?: Unclear Intention to treat analysis: Unclear Potential for unit of analysis error for some outcomes: Yes, but acknowledged and adjusted for
Participants	Speciality: Community‐ based family physicians Clinical setting: Community‐ based family practices, USA Types of patients: Adults consulting with various problems
Interventions	Content of intervention Workshop designed to teach skills that build and maintain patient‐provider trust. It addressed: models of patient‐provider relationship; goals for the office visit; barriers to achieving these goals; and techniques for overcoming these barriers; an adapted version of the 'Bayer Communication Workshop' ; patients' experiences with patient‐provider trust (as described in prior focus groups). Specific behaviours related to developing trust were targeted: greetings to demonstrate respect and connect with patient as person; eliciting/ acknowledging patients' goals for visit; demonstrating thoroughness in history taking and examination; negotiating a mutually agreeable treatment plan; answering questions/ explaining; arranging follow‐up/access. Problem‐based learning techniques were used. The workshop included brief didactic presentations, group discussion, viewing of videotaped encounters with patients, and role‐playing. Duration and timing: Seven hours (one day workshop) Numbers of providers receiving intervention:10 Numbers of patients followed up in IG: Not stated (343 patients overall) Review authors' score for intensity of the patient‐centredness of the intervention: 5/10 Review authors' score for intensity of the patient‐centredness of the teaching strategies used: 5/10 Control group received no training Numbers of providers in CG: 10 Numbers of patients followed up in CG: Not stated (343 patients overall)
Outcomes	Consultation process: Provider's humaneness during visit, mean number of diagnostic tests, referrals Satisfaction: Patient's satisfaction with visit; patient's trust in the provider Health behaviours: Continuity with study provider; medication or advice adherence, Health status: NA
Notes	Measures used: For provider's humaneness during visit: Type:Patient questionnaire (Physician Humanistic Behaviours Questionnaire) Index:19 items (Weaver 1993) For patient satisfaction with visit: Type: patient questionnaire Index: not stated (Davis 1991) For patient trust in the provider: Type: patient questionnaire (Trust in the Physician scale) Index: not stated (Anderson 1990) For continuity with study provider and adherence to advice or prescribed medication: Type: Patient questionnaire Index: 2 questions (no reference given) For numbers of referrals made and number of diagnostic tests ordered: Type: Data from patients' charts
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Ten of the physicians were then randomized to receive the intervention." Did not describe how sequence was generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Did not indicate whether or not randomisation was concealed
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Did not indicate whether or not outcome assessors were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Did not provide data on attrition or missing data and did not indicate that intention to treat analysis was done
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Reported on all measured outcomes
Other bias	High risk	No attempt made to avoid contamination, could have led to Type 2 error Potential for unit of analysis was acknowledged and adjusted for: "The effect of the intervention on outcomes was tested using analysis of variance techniques to adjust for the non‐independence of observations from patients seen by the same physician Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups