Turner 2007.

Methods	Parallel randomised controlled trial.
Participants	Participants: indigenous families of the children 1 to 13 years of age presenting to four South‐East Queensland Community Health sites. Sex: 45 mothers; 6 fathers. Age of parents: mean 34.52 years (SD 10.54), intervention; mean 30.87 years (SD 7.65), control. Unit of allocation: individual participant. Number randomised: 51 (26 intervention; 25 control). Number used in analysis: 38 (20 intervention; 18 control). Country & setting: Australia; multi‐site (n=4); recruited from community settings; intervention delivered in the community. Inclusion criteria: indigenous families with target child aged between 1 and 13 years; primary caregiver had concerns about their child’s behaviour or their own parenting skills. Exclusion criteria: developmental delay; major physical difficulty; severe chronic illness; developmental disorder (for example: autism); current medication or contact with another professional for behavioural problems. Ethnicity: all indigenous ethnicity. Baseline characteristics: mean 2.5 children per family; 11 (22%) in full time employment; 32 (63%) unemployed; 35 (68%) two‐parent family; target child: 33 (65%) boys; 34 (67.3%) mothers, 3 (6.1%) fathers, 9 (16.3%) grandmothers, 3 (6.1%) aunts and 2 (4.0%) guardians.
Interventions	Two conditions: 'Group Triple P' parent programme; wait‐list control. Duration of intervention: 8 weeks. Length of follow‐up: 6 months (intervention group only).
Outcomes	Depressive symptoms (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale). Stress (Depression Anxiety Stress 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 K Turner to CB on 28 Oct 2010) states "the research officer used a computer program for random number generation for each site".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Information reported insufficient for a judgement to be made. Information from trial investigators (email from K Turner to CB on 28 Oct 2010) states that "there were sealed envelopes".
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participants	High risk	Review authors judged 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	Investigators report that trial personnel were blind to allocation status of participants.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessors	Low risk	Investigators report that outcome assessors were blind to allocation status of participants.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data for 6/26 (23%) missing from the intervention condition (2 new baby; 1 decided not to participate; 1 illness in family; 1 illness; 1 too busy with work), and for 7/25 (28%) from the control condition (3 unknown; 1 death in family; 1 illness in family; 1 premature baby; 1 family crisis). Overall attrition was 25.5% at post‐intervention. Review authors considered the numbers of and reasons for missing data reasonably likely to be balanced across the treatment conditions.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Investigators do not report on the anxiety scale of the DASS. A 42 item questionnaire was chosen but this was reduced to only 14 items(depression and stress) on the request of the local medical board to reduce the assessment burden on parents.
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias. Investigators report "there were no significant differences between those who completed post‐assessment and those who did not on any demographic or outcome measure at pre‐test" (page 433, col 1).