O'Callaghan 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group Study duration: 12 weeks
Participants	Inclusion criteria: children aged 7–18 years and their caregivers living in a war‐affected community facing current risks of attack/abduction by armed groups Exclusion criteria: not reported Age range: 7–18 years Gender: 55% boys, 45% girls Intervention sample: 79 Control sample: 80 Main type of traumatic event: bereavement Phase of humanitarian crisis: during the acute crisis (mortality was still higher than it was before the crisis) Type of humanitarian crisis: war/armed conflict
Interventions	Intervention name: no specific name. The intervention is generically described as a "psychosocial intervention." Delivered by: para‐professional Format of therapy: face to face Number of sessions (total): 8 Type of control: waiting list Type of intervention context: intervention took place in Li‐May and Kiliwa, 2 small villages in Dungu territory, in Haut Uele Province, with an estimated combined population of < 1000 inhabitants. Type of promotion intervention: group level Description of the intervention: the author‐compiled intervention manual was based on 3 components: 13 'Chuo Cha Maisha', a youth life skills leadership programme developed and piloted in Tanzania; 2. Mobile Cinema clips: narrative, fictional films, produced and created in Dungu in the local language to address stigma and discrimination and model how young people, parents and the village community could welcome formerly abducted children back into their communities; and 3. relaxation technique scripts used in trauma‐focused CBT and used in 3 studies with young people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Outcomes	Prosocial behaviour Outcome type: continuous outcome Reporting: fully reported Scale: AYPA‐Prosocial Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Acceptability (dropout from trial) Outcome type: dichotomous Reporting: fully reported Data value: endpoint
Notes	Sponsorship source: funded by a donor who wished to remain anonymous. Country: Democratic Republic of Congo Setting: rural communities in the Haut‐Uele Province of northern Democratic Republic of Congo Author's name: Paul O'Callaghan Institution: School of Psychology, Queen's University Email: pocallaghan02@qub.ac.uk Address: Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "each member (…) was randomly assigned to either the treatment or the control group using a computer generated random sequence (www.random.org). This sequence was supplied by one of the authors off site. The lead author then allocated participants using the randomized sequence."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Selection bias was reduced by ensuring treatment allocation was concealed from those responsible for participant enrolment and by ensuring the person responsible for assigning participants met none of the participants prior to the group allocation."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Judgement comment: blinding procedures were not reported. It is likely that participants were not blinded to intervention allocation because the trial was open label.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "data were collected by the same blinded outcome assessors (…). Blinding involved with holding the randomization sequence from the assessors, having no overlap between the assessors and the intervention facilitation team, having no contact between assessors and participants during the intervention and requesting that the assessors do not ask participants which group they were in during the post‐intervention and follow‐up assessment."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low attrition rate according to figure 1 of the publication. Dropouts were reported together with reasons (3/79 dropouts in the intervention group and 3/80 dropouts in the wait‐list group).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Data for the control group were missing at follow‐up. No protocol available but trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01542398).
Therapist qualification	Unclear risk	Quote: "Three male and three female local lay facilitators living in Dungu and working for SAIPED, a Dungu‐based humanitarian NGO, delivered the intervention in the church in Kiliwa in the morning and in the church in Li‐May in the afternoon every second day."
Therapist/investigator allegiance	Unclear risk	No information provided.
Intervention fidelity	Low risk	Quote: "To enhance intervention fidelity, facilitators were given a copy of the manualised intervention in French and met for three hours with the lead researcher the day before delivering each module in order to review the previous module taught, prepare for the subsequent module and discuss any suggested cultural changes to the module (e.g., using culturally familiar songs and games as warm‐up activities etc.)."
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias detected.