Dybdahl 2001.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Duration of study: the study was conducted in 1995‐1996. Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina Income classification: middle‐income country in 1995‐1996 Geographical scope: urban (town of Tuzla, a multiethnic industrial town in northeastern Bosnia) Healthcare setting: home
Participants	1. Age: mothers: mean 30.7 years (SD 4.9), range 20‐44 years; children: mean age 5.5 years (SD 0.7) 2. Gender: both 3. Socioeconomic background: mothers: 85% urban origin, married 63%, widowed 36%, divorced 1%, living in private accommodation 60%, refugee camp 40% 4. Educational background: mothers: education 14% illiterate (mean 5.3 years, SD 2.8; range 0‐14 years) Inclusion criteria: internally displaced Bosnian mothers with a child aged 5‐6 years. Exclusion criteria: a. participating in any other intervention programme; b. unlikely to move out of the area before November 1996. Note: at baseline, amongst mothers, the intervention and control group scores for the Impact of Event Scale (IES) were, respectively, 71.2 (26.8) and 62.1 (22.9). Stated purpose: designed to evaluate the effects of a psychosocial intervention programme on children in war‐torn Bosnia and Herzegovina
Interventions	Name: psychosocial intervention Title/name of PW and number: group leaders; 5 preschool teachers trained for the study 1. Selection: not specified 2. Educational background: not specified 3. Training: in a group of 3‐8 group leaders by a mental health professional. Duration: 5‐day workshop. Before arrival, the participants received basic information about the programme, its background and aims. Content: participants introduced themselves to one another, received written material and introductory training in some of the key issues, such as trauma, child development and the importance of interaction and communication (mother‐child), two 3‐hour seminars. Then 3 days of more detailed description of the programme and reinforcing through group work, demonstrations, role‐plays and discussion the above topics (roles of caretaker, trauma and its effects on adults and children, groups and group dynamics, supervision, logbook). 4. Supervision: weekly group meetings (with 6‐8 group leaders with a supervisor (a mental health professional) and later twice a month) 5. Incentives/remuneration: not specified Prevention type: indicated – internally displaced refugees with experiences of traumatic events. They presented with some level of distress as indicated by the IES scores. Intervention details: group work using a manual‐based approach derived from therapeutic discussions with war‐traumatized women at the Psychological Centre in Tuzla (1993‐1996), and the ICDP; semi‐structured group discussions introduced by group leaders dedicated to providing information about trauma and trauma reactions in adults and children, as well as suggestions for how to meet common post‐traumatic needs and problems, with an emphasis on strengthening participants' own coping strategies and reinforcing existing normal basic communication and interaction skills. Direct attention was given to the mothers and their mental health, to their beliefs and knowledge about children, and the reactions and needs of adults and children following traumatic events. Mothers were also visited once at home to establish rapport and express support. Group leader met weekly with 2 groups of mothers (5 per group) for 5 months; 1 additional visit to each mother at her home at start of programme. CONTROL: usual care—participants received free basic medical care.
Outcomes	Participants’outcomes of interest for this review Distress/PTSD – IES Quality of Life – Well‐being Scale based on Andrews 1976 Social support – Perceived Social Support based on Flannery 1990 Carers’ outcomes of interest for this review Nil Economic outcomes Nil Time points: baseline, post‐intervention (< 1 month)
Notes	Source of funding: UNICEF; University of Tromso Notes on validation of instruments (screening and outcomes): mother's rating of child's concentration and concentration problems; perceived social support – not validated separately. IES scores: not diagnostic of PTSD, but some literature suggests IES score above 33 suggestive of PTSD. Additional information: none Handling the data: not applicable Prospective trial registration number: not reported