Devries 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: cluster‐RCT Duration of study: the study was conducted from January 2012 to September 2014. Country: Uganda Income classification: lower‐income country between 2012 and 2014 Geographical scope: Luwero District Healthcare setting: 42 primary schools (activities with students and staff were conducted in schools), some activities involve creating a better school environment by painting murals on school walls, and hanging codes of conduct in visible places; however, the intervention does not require any physical infrastructure.
Participants	1. Age: most students were aged 11 to 14 years, mean age 13 (1.5) years 2. Gender: both 3. Socioeconomic background: more than half reported eating fewer than three meals in the day before the survey. 4. Educational background: not specified Inclusion criteria—schools: a. schools in Luwero District, Uganda; b. schools with more than 40 students registered in Primary 5. Inclusion criteria—children: a. registered as a Primary 5, 6, or 7 pupil; b. any school staff member. Exclusion criteria—schools: existing programme related to prevention of violence against children or school governance. Exclusion criteria—children: not able to understand consent and study procedures. Note: at baseline, the intervention and control group scores for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) were, respectively, 0.47 (0.26) and 0.46 (0.27). Stated purpose: assess if the Good School Toolkit, a complex behavioural intervention, could reduce physical violence from school staff to Ugandan primary school children.
Interventions	Name: the Good School Toolkit Intervention Title/name of PW and number: 2 staff and 2 student protagonists (4) 1. Selection: from an inception visit of 2 hours where Raising Voices introduces the Toolkit to school staff 2. Educational background: not specified 3. Training: 100 h of training Raising Voices staff with individualized coaching support to understand the ideas and content of the Toolkit. The key protagonists in each school are not required to have any specific background or training, but receive the 3‐day residential workshop and ongoing support. 4. Supervision: during the intervention, Raising Voices staff members to provide direct one‐on‐one support in the form of in‐person visits and telephone calls to staff protagonists, and in‐person visits to student protagonists. Raising Voices staff made in‐person visits to protagonists in each school on a quarterly basis, and telephoned school staff members approximately monthly, although this varied slightly depending on need. 5. Incentives/remuneration: schools did not receive any inducement or incentive for participation (other than receiving the Toolkit intervention). Prevention type: universal prevention – students and school staff of primary schools with no restriction on inclusion criteria. Participants at baseline presented with difficulties scores well below the cut‐off for the measure. Intervention details: the Good School Toolkit is a complex intervention that aims to foster a change of operational culture at the school level, developed by the Ugandan NGO Raising Voices. The Toolkit consists of six steps designed to be implemented in sequence and draws on the Transtheoretical Model of behaviour change. The steps contain more than 60 different activities for staff, students and administration, focused around topics such as improving the school compound and creating a better learning environment, respect and understanding power relationships, improving teaching techniques, creating accountability, and learning nonviolent methods of discipline. These are delivered by two staff and two students “protagonists”, who are chosen at the outset of the intervention to lead processes at each school. Control: waiting list – delivery of the Good Schools Toolkit at the end of the study
Outcomes	Participants’outcomes of interest for this review Distress/PTSD symptoms – SDQ Quality of life – SDQ, school well‐being Adverse events Carers’ outcomes of interest for this review Nil Economic outcomes Nil Time points: baseline, post‐intervention (< 1 month)
Notes	Source of funding: MRC, DfID, Wellcome Trust, Hewlett Foundation Notes on validation of instruments (screening and outcomes): all outcomes measured with instruments widely used internationally had been validated in a variety of settings as reported in the paper. Additional information: none Handling the data: not applicable Prospective trial registration number: NCT01678846