Greaves 1997.

Methods	Parallel randomised controlled trial.
Participants	Participants: mothers of pre‐school children attending a centre for children with Down's syndrome. Sex: all mothers. Age of parents: not stated. Unit of allocation: individual participant. Number randomised: 54 (21 intervention; 17 comparative‐treatment; 16 control). Number used in analysis: 37 (21 intervention; 16 control). Country & setting: Australia; single‐site; recruited from community settings; intervention delivered in the community. Inclusion criteria: mothers of pre school children attending a centre for children with Down syndrome. Exclusion criteria: not stated. Ethnicity: not stated. Baseline characteristics: not stated.
Interventions	Three condition: Rational Emotive parent education (cognitive‐behavioural parenting programme); Applied Behaviour Analysis programme; no‐treatment control. Duration of intervention: 8 weeks. Length of follow‐up: none.
Outcomes	Depressive symptoms (Parenting Stress Index). Stress (Parenting Stress Index). Anger (Berger Feeling Scale). Guilt (Berger Feeling Scale). Partner Satisfaction (Parenting Stress Index).
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (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.
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	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) Outcome assessors	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.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Trial investigators do not report any missing data for change scores at endpoint. They note that participants did not complete measures at 6‐month follow up, and present no follow up data.
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.