Morawska 2009.

Methods	Parallel randomised controlled trial.
Participants	Participants: parents with child aged 3 to 10 years, reporting concerns about their child's behaviour or their parenting. Sex: 68 mothers; 7 fathers. Age: mothers: mean 39.28 years (SD 5.50; range: 27‐54 years); fathers: mean 41.77 years (SD 6.01; range: 35‐56 years). Unit of allocation: individual participant. Number randomised: 75 (37 intervention; 38 control). Number used in analysis: 60‐70 (29‐33 intervention; 31‐37 control). Country & setting: Australia; single‐site; recruited from community settings; intervention delivered in the community. Inclusion criteria: family living within Brisbane metropolitan area; parents reporting concerns about their child's behaviour or their parenting; child aged 3 to 10 years; child identified as 'gifted' by school or as result of formal cognitive assessment. Exclusion criteria: parents currently seeing a professional about their child's behaviour difficulties. Ethnicity: Australian (85.3%), Asian (5.3%); Maori (1.3%), other (8%). Baseline characteristics: 86.7% children lived in their original family, 8% children lived in a single parent family, and 4% lived in a step family; mean family size 2.23 children; education: 77.3% of mothers and 65.3% of fathers had a university degree; employment: 60% of mothers and 86.7% of fathers were employed.
Interventions	Two conditions: Gifted and Talented Group Triple‐P program; wait‐list control. Duration of intervention: 9 weeks. Length of follow‐up: 6 months for the intervention group only.
Outcomes	Depressive symptoms (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale). Anxiety symptoms (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale). Stress (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale). Confidence (Parenting Task Checklist). Partner satisfaction (Relation Quality Index).
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random sequence allocation by computer‐generated random numbers.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Information from trial investigator (email from A Morawska to CB on 26/10/10) states that a research assistant not associated with the project used a list to allocate participants, but there is no indication that complete concealment of allocation was attempted.
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	High risk	There is no indication either from the published report, or from the trial investigator that personal were blinded to the intervention (email from A Morawska to CB on 26/10/10).
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessors	High risk	The outcome assessment was self report by the parents so there were no judgements made by the assessors in relation to diagnostic status, however the parents were not blinded to the intervention.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	On page 468 there was missing data for 8/37 from the intervention group and 7/38 from the control group. Data for 4/37 (10.8%) were missing from the intervention condition, and for 1/38 (2.6%) from the control condition. Reasons for the 5 missing given as: 1 moved area, 1 had a new baby; 1 had insufficient time to attend, 1 had received a recent diagnosis of LD for their child and 1 was undergoing chemotherapy (page 466, col 2). Further information from trial investigator provided some details about the pairwise exclusion of missing data in the report (email from A Morawska to CB on 26/10/10).
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	Investigators report "no between‐group differences on demographic variables were found on preliminary analysis. There were also no significant differences across the majority of outcome variables. Pre‐intervention scores were used as co‐variates in subsequent analyses to control for any differences’ (page 466, col 2). The study appeared to be free of other sources of bias.