DeGarmo 2004.

Methods	Parallel randomised controlled trial.
Participants	Participants: separated single mothers and their sons aged 6 to 10 years recruited in the community and in divorce court record departments. Sex: all mothers. Age of parents: mean 34.8 years (SD 5.4; range 21.4 to 49.6). Unit of allocation: mother/child dyads. Number randomised: 238 (153 intervention; 85 control). Number used in analysis: 216 (137 intervention; 79 control) at short‐term follow‐up; 179 (116 intervention; 63 control) at long‐term follow‐up. Country & setting: USA; single‐site; recruited from community settings: intervention delivered in the community. Inclusion criteria: single mothers; separated from partner within the prior 3 to 24 months; residing with a biological son of school grade between 1 and 6 inclusive; not cohabiting with a new partner. Exclusion criteria: not stated. Ethnicity: 86% white, 1% African American, 2% Latino; 2% Native American, 9% other. Baseline characteristics: mean separation time 9.2 months; mean 2.1 children per family; 76% receiving public assistance; education: 76% mothers had some academic or vocational training beyond high school; 14% mothers had completed college degree or higher; 4% mothers had not completed high school; 49% mothers clinically depressed as assessed by cut‐off score of 16 on CES‐D.
Interventions	Two conditions: Parent management training (behavioural parenting programme); no‐treatment control. Duration of intervention: 14 weeks. Duration of trial: 30 months. Length of follow up: 12 months, 18 months, and 30 months.
Outcomes	Depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale).
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made, but information from trial investigator (email from D.DeGarmo to CB on 14 Jul 2010) states "we used block randomisation and fixed allocation 3:2, families were first recruited in blocked cohorts; a data manager used a random number generator and probabilities adjusted for fixed allocation for that cohort".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made. We requested clarification from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participants	High risk	Review authors judge that it would not be possible to fully blind participants in this type of study, and found no indication of any specific additional measures taken to reduce the risk of bias that might result from differential behaviours by participants.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Personnel	Low risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made, but information from trial investigator (email from DeGarmo to CB on) states "all assessors, interviewers, and coders were blind to participants assigned group status. Coders and interviewers were mismatched across waves so they were not exposed to the same families wherever possible".
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessors	Low risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made, but information from trial investigator (email from D.DeGarmo to CB on 14 Jul 2010) states "all assessors, interviewers, and coders were blind to participants assigned group status. Coders and interviewers were mismatched across waves so they were not exposed to the same families wherever possible".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made. We requested clarification from the trial investigators, but no further information was available at the time this review was prepared.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Review authors judge that the published report includes all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified.
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.