Author's response to reviews Title: Effectiveness of contact-based education for reducing mental illness-related stigma in pharmacy students Authors:

First sentence of results says ‘no evidence of heterogeneity was found’. Heterogeneity of what? This sentence requires clarification. Clarification has been added: . Next sentence says ‘statistically significant decline’. Suggest adding a figure to this decline or p-value of significance. The p-value has been added. Methods: The timing of data collection is still not entirely clear. Page 7 tells us that T2 was collected 23 days after early group received intervention, but Figure 1 says T3 was up to a month after late group received the intervention. This could potentially have an impact on results as the intervention would have clearly still been in the early groups mind 2-3 days after but the late group didn’t complete the follow up for a month later? The potential impact of this should be discussed and addressed as a limitation to the study. We‟ve added a sentence about this to the methods section. “ No compensation/incentive is written twice in paragraph 2 and 3, page 7 – suggest removing from one of these. The phrase that included “incentive” has been removed. Discussion: Limitations to add around timing of T2 versus T3 post-intervention. Also the low response rate is discussed but I also feel the overall low numbers should also be discussed as a limitation to generalizability. An additional caution about generalizability has been added, this is the final sentence of the paper: “Furthermore, generalizability to other groups of pharmacy students or other schools needs to be confirmed by replication of these results.” Page 14, paragraph 4 discusses short term nature of study. This should be discussed in relation to literature (ref 26) and the sustainability of the effects of contact-based education for pharmacy students. Page 4, paragraph 4, 2nd sentence. ‘Of concern, 26% indicated...’ suggest rewording to ‘Of concern is that 26% of respondents indicated...’ Done. Page 5, paragraph 2 – while describing Phokeo study ‘only 55% endorsed...’ not sure this point fits with rest of study or how it relates to rest of background? Perhaps a linking statement required? It doesn‟t fit well with the rest of the study, so it has been removed rather than attempting to link it with the other information. Page 5, paragraph 2. ‘... but with only 32% reported this for depressed patients.’ Suggest removing ‘with’. Done. Page 5, paragraph 3, last sentence. Study referring to MHFA training is not referenced. Also description of study not quite correct. 60 students received training compared to 212 students who did not. Also ‘where not randomly selected’ – should be ‘were’. Corrections made. Page 6, first paragraph. Bell et al. not referenced by number. The reference has been added. Page 6, first paragraph. Last sentence says ‘diminished negative attitudes and increased positive attitudes’ of what? Clarify relation to mental illness Clarification added. Page 6 paragraph 2 – ‘to address health care provider stigma’ – or more correctly ‘pharmacy student stigma’? Yes, this wording in more specific, it has been changed to “pharmacy student stigma”. Page 6, paragraph 3. ‘It was hypothesized that contact-based session...’ suggest ‘the contact based sessions’ Correction made. Page 7, first sentence. Suggest ‘Each of these institutions HAS offered’ The word “has” has been added. Page 10, first paragraph. Intervention described as ‘social contact intervention’ elsewhere as ‘contact-based education’ – suggest using consistency terminology. This phrase and two other occurrences have been changed to “contact-based education.” Page 10, first paragraph. Question use of comma between ‘strictly, speaking...’ Page 10, paragraph 2. ‘To assess possible confounding’ – suggest ‘to assess for possible confounders’