265 Supplementary material | Appendix A A Table 4. Risk of bias assessments of each study. Study Domain-level risk of bias Randomization process Effect of assignment to intervention Missing outcome data Measurement of the outcome Selection of the reported result Overall risk of bias Ali et al. (2021) 1 2 1 1 3 high Alvarez-Jimenez et al. (2021) 1 1 1 1 1 low Chinman et al. (2001) 3 1 1 1 2 high Craig et al. (2004) 1 2 1 2 1 some concerns Davidson et al. (2004) 2 1 1 2 2 some concerns Day et al. (2018) 1 1 1 2 1 some concerns Duwe (2018b) 3 1 1 1 1 some concerns El-Bassel et al. (1995) 2 1 1 2 2 high Gater et al. (2010) 2 2 1 1 1 some concerns Hanlon et al. (1999) 2 3 1 1 2 high Harris et al. (1999) 1 1 1 3 2 high Hengartner et al. (2016) 1 2 3 2 1 high King et al. (2006) 1 1 2 2 1 some concerns King et al. (2009) 1 2 1 1 1 some concerns King et al. (2019) 1 2 1 1 2 some concerns Klein et al. (1998) 3 3 3 3 2 high Leigh et al. (1999) 2 3 3 1 2 high Litt et al. (2007) 1 1 1 2 2 some concerns Litt et al. (2009) 1 1 1 2 2 some concerns Litt et al. (2016) 1 1 1 1 1 low Lloyd-Evans et al. (2020) 2 1 1 1 1 some concerns McCorkle et al. (2008) 3 2 1 3 1 high Pettus-Davis et al. (2011) 2 2 3 2 2 high Priebe et al. (2020) 1 1 1 1 1 low Ranzenhofer et al. (2020) 1 3 3 1 1 high Rivera et al. (2007) 2 1 1 1 2 some concerns Rowe et al. (2007) 1 1 2 1 2 some concerns
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw