Forst 1993.

Methods	RCT. Participants randomly allocated to 1 of 2 intervention groups or control by drawing pieces of paper marked A, B or C from a bowl
Participants	52 undergraduate university students (aged 19‐44 years, mean 23.9 years, SD 5.83; 33 males, 21 females) in criminal justice and psychology classes at Florida Atlantic University, USA
Interventions	Intervention ‐ workshop A: a didactic, lecture‐based acquaintance rape prevention programme including video. 16 students Intervention ‐ workshop B: an experiential, interactive discussion of acquaintance rape including interactive theatre performance. 17 students Both interventions were delivered as a single 1‐hour session and were delivered by the study author, a policewoman and a representative from the county sexual assault programme Control: no intervention. 19 students
Outcomes	Acceptance of rape myths, as measured by the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale and Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale
Follow‐up	Immediate post‐test and 2‐week follow‐up
Notes	‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random allocation by drawing lots
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Drawing lots from a bowl meant that neither participants nor investigators were able to foresee assignments, therefore low risk of selection bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Attrition: 2% (1/55). Low rate unlikely to affect results
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes fully reported (number of participants, means and SDs provided)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding not possible. Personnel delivering intervention received some training and a facilitators' guide but no mention of how adherence to study protocol was ascertained, therefore high risk of bias
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated