Brown 2010.
| Methods | Cluster‐randomized trial | |
| Participants | 77 teachers in 18 primary schools. 9 intervention (n=43) and 9 control (n=34) schools in New York City, USA | |
| Interventions | 1‐ 4Rs Programme‐ universal, school‐based intervention in literacy development, social‐emotional learning, and conflict resolution 2‐ No‐intervention control |
|
| Outcomes | Teacher Perceived Emotional Ability Scale, Maslach Burnout Inventory Surveys conducted at baseline and 6 months post intervention |
|
| Notes | Teachers in the intervention group receive training and ongoing coaching in the delivery of the 4Rs curriculum to school children. Date of the intervention: 2004‐2005 Funding: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Grant R305L030003); William T. Grant Foundation Conflict of interest: No |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Schools pair‐wise matched and then randomly assigned using a uniform random numbers generator |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported, not applicable |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | It is stated that there was no attrition from fall to spring in the assessment of the first year of the study, and data were collected from 4 additional teachers. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All stated outcome data reported |
| Recruitment bias | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Baseline imbalance | Low risk | The authors report that the 2 groups did not differ significantly on a range of demographic and school characteristics employed in the matching procedures. However, teaching experience was significantly higher for the control group compared to intervention group, which may only be concerning if it was vice versa |
| Incorrect analysis | Low risk | 2‐level hierarchical linear model used, and clustering taken into account |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | No mention of the total teacher population (sampling frame) and non‐responders, and no indication of whether the study was sufficiently powered |